Hank Walker
Ford Motor Company Design Professor II and
Department Head
Department of Computer Science and
Engineering

Research Papers


Technical Reports
Reports

Vary tremendously in length/scope
 Long report about work of a committee
 Short report about a particular topic


Technical Documentation







Vary in purpose
Design
Development
Users
White Papers
Memos
Web Sites
etc.



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




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.

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?


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?


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.



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.
1.
2.
Look at the Title
Check either:
A.
B.
3.
4.
Index
Table of Contents
Find section with the specific material needed
Find relevant subsection within that section
Then, read the material of relevance.

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

Use White Space






Indentation
Line breaks
Page breaks
Keep paragraphs short
Use lists, bullet points
Maintain clear section headings.

There are three stages of presentation:
1.
2.
3.

Importance:




Attract Attention
Create Interest
Convey Information
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 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


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





Title
Abstract
Introduction
Previous Work


Main Work (ideas/theory/exposition)




Possibly combined into main work section
Conclusion


If needed
Results


Possibly in several sections
Implementation


Possibly including background information
With future work
Acknowledgements
References
Appendices





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


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.


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

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



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.



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…)

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.

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.



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.

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.

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!

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

You want to demonstrate all of the core ideas that
you discussed in practice



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




If you discussed something, show the results
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

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.



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.

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?


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

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

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.

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.



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

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?



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.

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.

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.

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