1. EAS 299 Reading, reviewing research papers Professor Jan Van der Spiegel (ESE) Professor Vijay Kumar (MEAM/CIS) www.seas.upenn.edu/~eas299

3. 1. How to start Anatomy of an Engineering Research Paper Title Abstract (Summary) Introduction – why the subject area is important – prior work, overview of this paper, contributions in context of prior work Main Body – Approach, Methods, Procedure, Experiments Results Discussion (optional) Conclusion References

4. 1. How to start Flip through/skim – get a rough idea of the goal of the paper, classify the research – abstract, introduction, figures, conclusion Understanding technical terms Examples: public-key cryptography, atomic-scale friction – Google – But in context … Examples: Lactose induction v. induction motors Comprehension – Focus on abstract, introduction, conclusion – References Look for introductory articles (the older the better, try chronological)

5. 2. The Second Read Understand the main results first – Plots, figures, theorems Then the main body – Technical approach – Methods, procedures Back to the claims to innovation – Abstract – Conclusions

6. 3. How to make notes Highlight Parts you don’t understand Pointers to more reading Underline Why did they do X? Why did they not observe Y? Isn’t there a better way to calculate Z? Stickies Points of disagreement, flawed reasoning, exaggerated claims, wrong assumptions, mistake in derivations

7. 4. How to write reviews A.What problems? Results? B.What did they really do? As opposed to what they claim they did? C.What is the main contribution? D.Have others attacked similar problems? Or shown similar results? And are these acknowledged? E.How would you have attacked the same research problem? Would you have done things differently? Better? Less expensively? F.What other issues would you have explored? Can you make good suggestions for the authors to follow up on their work?

8. 5. Assignment for Next Week Choose 1 paper in area of interest – Any paper on the website (after 1970) Review – Critical review – Suggest steps for improving/enhancing research or directions for new research

9. Outline for the Review (2 pages) A. Summary of the paper – What is the key take home message? B. Motivation – Why should I read the paper? C.Technical approach – What was accomplished? How? D. How do the authors explain the results? What do the authors claim?

10. Outline for the Review E. Your comments on the technical approach (Section C) F. Do you think their results/conclusions (Section D) are correct? Are there simplifying assumptions? Is their reasoning flawed? Are they overlooking something? G. What questions do you have of the authors? H. What research would you pursue next if you were the in the authors’ shoes?