1. 1 22/nov/2013

2. 2 Workshop Goals  To present some tips for writing good paper bodies for scientific papers  To gain hands-on experience applying some of the tips to real examples

3. 3 Four Sections Scheme Paper Body

4. 4 2.Describe the problem/question to be solved 3.Describe your solution 4.Evaluation and Results 5.Related Work and Discussion Four Sections Scheme

5. 5 Section 2 2.Describe the problem/question to be solvedn(based on related works) Why is it a problem/question? Why is it important to solve it? Background/research context

6. 6 Section 3 3.Describe your solution  You are convincing the PC member that your solution really could solve the problem/question  This section is sometimes supplemented with a section describing implementation details

7. 7 Section 4 4.Evaluation and Results  Show that your solution really solve the problem/question  The section where you prove your initial question, hypothesis, idea, etc.

8. 8 Section 4 Assessment of solution validity:  The results show that you really solved the problem/question  You have thought of all reasonable counterarguments

9. 9 Section 4 Structure: 1.Experiments/Case Studies: Plan 2.Experiments/Case Studies: Results

10. 10 Section 5 5.Related Work and Discussion:  Describe what other people have done in the area and compare with your work/results  Convince others that what you have done is novel and relevant

11. 11 Section 5 5.Related Work and Discussion: (cont.)  What might the answer imply and why does it matter?  How does it fit in with what other researchers have found?  What are the perspectives for future research?

12. 12 Section 5 5.Related Work and Discussion: (cont.)  What might the answer imply and why does it matter?  Conclusion  How does it fit in with what other researchers have found?  What are the perspectives for future research?  Conclusion

13. 13

14. 14 Section 5 Structure: 1.Results Interpretation 2.Comparison with related works 3.Qualitative evaluation

15. 15 Results Interpretation

16. 16 Results Interpretation

17. 17 Section 5 Results Interpretation:  Interpret and describe the outcomes of your research by means of:  Figures  Tables  Graphs  Images  Calculations  etc.

18. 18 Results and Discussion Style:  Results/past-present; Discussion/present  3rd Person, preferably: related work  1st person, plural: the rest  Use active voice whenever possible  Subsections may improve organization and comprehension

19. 19 Body Paper: Four Sections Scheme Estimated Length for each Section Abstract– 4 sentences – 150 words Section 1: Introduction – 1p (p= A4 page) Section 2: Research Problem – 1p Section 3: Solution – 2/5p Section 4: Results – 2/5p Section 5: Discussion – 1/2p Section 6: Conclusion – 0.5p

20. 20 IMRAD structure An acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion Alternative Scheme

21. 21 IMRAD structure An acronym for Introduction, Methods, Results, And Discussion Usual in medicine, electronics and experimental software engineering papers! Alternative Scheme

22. 22 IMRAD structure  Introduction  Why was the study undertaken?  What was the research question, the tested hypothesis or the purpose of the research?

23. 23 IMRAD structure  Methods  When, where, and how was the study done?  What materials were used or who was included in the study groups (patients, professionals, students, etc.)?

24. 24 IMRAD structure  Results  What answer was found to the research question?  What did the study find?  Was the tested hypothesis true?

25. 25 IMRAD structure  And Discussion  What might the answer imply and why does it matter?  How does it fit in with what other researchers have found?  What are the perspectives for future research?

26. 26 Erwann Wernli, Mircea Lungu, Oscar Nierstrasz, “Incremental Dynamic Updates with First-class Contexts”, Journal of Object Technology, Volume 12, no. 3 (August 2013), pp. 1:1-27, doi:10.5381/jot.2013.12.3.a1.

27. 27 1 Introduction 2 Running Example 2.1 The Problem with Updates 2.2 Lifecycle of an Incremental Update 3 First-class Context 4 Implementation 5 Validation 5.1 First Experiment: Evolution 5.2 Second Experiment: Run-time Characteristics 6 Discussion 7 Related Work 8 Conclusion References

28. 28 Yannis Lilis, Anthony Savidis. An Integrated Approach to Source Level Debugging and Compile Error Reporting in Metaprograms. In Journal of Object Technology, vol. 12, no. 3, 2013, pages 2:1–26. doi:10.5381/jot.2013.12.3.a2.

29. 29 1 Introduction 2 Related Work 2.1 Compile-Time Debugging of Stages 2.2 Compile-Error Reporting 3 Language 4 Compile Errors 5 Stage Debugging 6 Evaluation 7 Conclusion References

30. 30 The End

31. 31