WritiNG for CS and CE

WRITINGFOR CS AND CE

Hank WalkerFord Motor Company Design Professor II and

Department HeadDepartment of Computer Science and

Engineering

Types of Writing Research Papers

Technical Reports Reports

Vary tremendously in length/scope Long report about work of a committee Short report about a particular topic

Vary in purpose Technical Documentation

Design Development Users

White Papers Memos Web Sites etc.

Goals of Writing The type of writing you do will vary

depending on many factors Difficult to give universal structure But, there are some things common to

most or all writing

AUDIENCE

Audience Probably the most important thing to

consider. This will determine everything from

structure to individual word choice. You think about this before you begin to

write anything! You are writing for the audience, not for

yourself.

Things to Think About What will be the background of those reading

this work? What prior knowledge will they have? What expectations will they have? What do I need to tell them so that they can

understand the paper? What is the reason someone will read this

document? What information is most important to convey to

the reader? What will the “life” of this document be?

Will the audience change? Will the document change?

ORGANIZATION

Organization The way you structure a document can

have more effect than the actual sentences it contains.

Again, think about the goals of a person reading. How would they expect the document to be

organized? What do they need to do with the document?

How Papers are Read Technical papers are not novels. With rare exceptions of short memos,

people will not just sit down one day and read your document from beginning to end.

How Research Papers are Read First: Read Title Second: Read Abstract Third:

a. Browse figures/captions b. Review citations

Fourth: Read small portions to get main idea

Only if someone is really interested do they sit down and read the whole paper from start to finish.

How Documentation is Read

1. Look at the Title2. Check either:

A. IndexB. Table of Contents

3. Find section with the specific material needed

4. Find relevant subsection within that section

Then, read the material of relevance.

Your organization should: Make it easy for someone to understand

the structure of the document Follow conventions Clearly label/section document

Find information they want within the document

Organization Use White Space

Indentation Line breaks Page breaks

Keep paragraphs short Use lists, bullet points Maintain clear section headings.

GENERAL ADVICE

General Presentation Advice(from my Father!)

There are three stages of presentation:1. Attract Attention2. Create Interest3. Convey Information

Importance: You don’t get to stage 2, unless you satisfy stage 1 You don’t get to stage 3, unless you satisfy stage 2 Although stage 3 is the most important, it’s

pointless unless you meet the first two stages. Applies to posters/presentations, but also to

papers

The Most Important Thing The RESEARCH!

You have to have some purpose for writing

However, people will not learn about the research unless they actually read your paper This also has implications for how and where

you publish your paper

If Time Allows We will discuss some specifics for writing

research papers. This is commonly done in graduate

school. Material developed for graduate students But, many principles carry forward to other

writing

WRITING RESEARCH PAPERS

SECTIONS OF THE PAPER

Paper Sections Title Abstract Introduction Previous Work

Possibly including background information Main Work (ideas/theory/exposition)

Possibly in several sections Implementation

If needed Results

Possibly combined into main work section Conclusion

With future work Acknowledgements References Appendices

Title Don’t underestimate title importance Memorable titles can help people

remember the paper The title will be used for searching, later

Remove unnecessary words Watch for misleading words

Introduction Motivation and Summary By the end of the introduction, someone

should be able to tell someone else what you did, and why. But probably not give any details about how

Keep the introduction short, relative to the rest of the paper.

Motivation Early on in the paper, you must make the

case for why you are doing this This should not be too long

If you have to spend too long to say why someone should read the paper, then there’s probably not a good reason

The motivation is not why you are writing the paper, it’s just there to get people to read it

Sometimes this is more important than other times – sometimes motivation is obvious

Summarizing Main Results You want to make it clear what the main

results of your paper are. Don’t “hide” them or make them a “surprise”

at the end Remember, most people will not read your full

paper – you still want them to know the main results

Should always be in the abstract Should be in the introduction of the paper

Main Results, Contributions, Thesis Statement Can be in the conclusion

A “Main Results” Section Could be a subsection, a paragraph, a

bulleted list, or a sentence Should be easy to find/locate Should make clear what is the new,

unique contribution of this work It is not a summary of everything you’ve done,

or even a summary of the paper Just list the key point(s) that are new to your

work.

The Thesis Statment A short statement that summarizes what

the focus of the paper is Can help to focus your writing,

presentation, and research The goal of the paper is to show why the

thesis statement is important and true (or false…)

Previous Work Section Provide references to relevant material

What are the key papers that someone should read to understand this?

What are the most relevant related papers/alternatives?

Demonstrate that you are familiar with the main research in the area Ensure you cite all the relevant work

Especially the papers of those who will read yours… Can’t cite everything; cite the most important things Usually, citations to textbooks aren’t needed

Unless that textbook provides a unique derivation, a particular summary, etc.

Previous Work Section If necessary provide background

summary of prior work For example, if you are building on your own

prior work Make sure that prior work is separated from

new work You want to clearly delineate what is new vs.

what is old. When giving citations to previous work, it

is good to show how your work fits in with that prior work.

The New Work This is the main, core part of your paper It should be the part that you are most

confident in, and have the most to say about

It is important that you are clear and accurate.

Things to Look Out For You are not just presenting a list of what

you did. Every piece of research has lots of

“infrastructure” work that goes on behind it – you don’t need to go into this, unless it is critical

You don’t need to discuss “dead end paths” that you pursued One exception is if it is very likely someone else

would follow that dead end path You research is evaluated on results, not

process.

Things to Look Out For You want to develop your material clearly

Usually, someone will read this section in order Don’t pull ideas/material from nowhere Make sure that information is presented in a

logical order Think of it as telling a (technical) story:

Keep the story moving Don’t refer to things that the reader has no

knowledge of Make sure the reader understands what has

happened!

Things to Look Out For Avoid tangential topics

Make the section about the main results, not the interesting “side” items

Use appendices if necessary

Make sure there is a clear overview Avoid going directly into details if the person

doesn’t have the overall picture Often, overview sections or figures are helpful

Results You want to demonstrate all of the core ideas that

you discussed in practice If you discussed something, show the results

Idea is to show that what you presented works, and give some sense of how well it works

Pick good test cases, that cover a range of situations Ones that allow comparison Ones that allow evaluation of parts of your technique Ones that simulate “real world” cases

You need to provide comparisons to other work, whenever possible This lets people evaluate your work

Conclusion Now that we have seen the work in the

paper, what can we conclude? What has been the “contribution” of this

work? What insights does this work offer? What does this now allow us to do?

Conclusion should not be just a summary of what was in the paper – that is obvious.

Future Work Usually part of the conclusion Not always included, but a good idea if

possible People want to know that the paper is not

a “dead end” What more could be done? If I like this area,

what could I work on next? Is this likely to stimulate future work?

Can be a “defense” against reviewers.

Future Work Avoid using “throwaway” future work

In computer science, you can always say you want to improve performance, port to a new system, or integrate with something else.

Better to have one or two solid areas for future work than 10 that aren’t developed.

Don’t just state areas, give some indication of the challenges/opportunities Why will that be worthwhile? What are some obstacles that will be faced in

that extension?

GENERAL COMMENTS

Audience Make sure you are writing to the appropriate

audience Usually, this is to other researchers in the field

Not to novices – they will know the basics of the field Not necessarily to just the foremost experts in the

area – they will not be familiar with every bit of prior work

Not to experts in all areas – they may not be familiar with simpler concepts from other fields

Some papers (e.g. literature reviews) are for more general, less expert, audiences

Audience Give them the background they need to

understand the paper Particularly if you rely on another technique;

don’t make them read other papers before they can read yours

Not always possible – sometimes there is too much to do

Notation might not be standardized Explain the notation as needed The concepts might already be known

Overstating/Understating Do not oversell your work

Do not promise more than you deliver Do not try to make your work have more impact

than it reasonably does

You probably have a higher opinion of your work than others do or ever will.

Readers are annoyed if they spend their time reading your article, only to find it didn’t do what was promised.

Overstating/Understating Do not undersell your work

Don’t put in so many disclaimers that you discourage someone from reading/following it

Point out problems, especially key ones, but: Your goal is not to point out every conceivable flaw If necessary, point out why problems might not be

so bad

You are writing the paper because you have something new to present, that others should find valuable.

Overcoming Objections Those reading the paper will often have

questions/objections. You want to answer/address these in the

paper This is key to getting the paper accepted

through review, but also for getting the paper accepted after publication

Overcoming Objections Think: “If I were a reviewer, what would I

have questions about?” Find a way to address those directly If they are technical concerns and you have

not addressed them in the work, show that you’ve thought about them

What examples should be included? What tests should be provided?

Figures and Captions People will usually look at figures before

they read the text You want the figures to stand on their

own as much as possible Be sure that your captions clearly

describe what is in the figure. Do not rely on the text to describe the figure.

Comparisons to Prior Work Always a tricky proposition

Your goal in the paper is to show how good your work is. You have spent a great deal of time on your own approach.

You must be fair to prior work, but you probably can’t devote as much effort to replicating it.

If standardized comparisons can be made, use them

If you implement another method for comparison, be sure to do your best with it If not, be sure to clearly state what you did not do,

and why.

Comparisons to Prior Work It is not OK to just present your material

and assume it should be accepted That does not show any new contribution over

the state of the art Exception: if it is truly the first time someone

has accomplished something If you cannot provide comparisons, at

least provide concise, clear arguments that evaluate your method vs. other methods.

Feedback If possible, get someone else to read your work

They should be willing to give direct, honest feedback Take their evaluations to heart

When reviewers reply with objections, don’t blame the reviewer If the reviewer didn’t understand it, it’s probably your fault Make sure that you address their concerns

Sometimes it is only a style/writing issue! Sometimes they have found more fundamental flaws

Even these can sometimes be addressed by writing differently. There are (very rare) exceptions where reviewers are way

off Always be polite and respectful in your responses, anyway

CONCLUSION