EDITORIAL

HOW TO WRITE RESEARCH ARTICLESIN COMPUTING AND ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES
Ivan Stojmenovic1 and Veljko Milutinovic2
1

SITE, University of Ottawa, Canada
stojmenovic@gmail.com www.site.uottawa.ca/~ivan
2

Department of Computer Engineering, University of Belgrade, Serbia
vm@etf.rs http://kondor.etf.rs/users/vm

ABSTRACTThis article advocates a general way of presenting
research articles on any topic and in any field
related to computer science, information
technology, and engineering disciplines. The key
advice to a successful presentation is to repeat thedescription of main contribution four times: in thetitle, abstract, introduction (or chapter 1) and in the
text. That is, to make readable, appealing, and ascomplete as possible versions of the work using theorder of 10, 100, 1000 and 10.000 words. This
corresponds to the decreasing portion of readers forcorresponding parts of the article. To the extent
possible, each of these parts should address, in thisorder: the problem statement, existing solutions, the
new solution(s), assumptions and limitations,analysis, simulation and comparison with bestcompeting solutions.
1. MOTIVATION FOR WRITING ANDREADING THIS ARTICLE
The major goal of this paper is to serve as a guideline forthe organization of research presentations in written form.
The major purpose of the entire effort is to make researchpresentations as easy to comprehend as absolutely
possible. ‘The process of clarifying your thinking, of
which writing papers is one aspect, is a valuable part of
improving your research’ [E]. The same structure is valid
for thesis work, as well as for conference and journal
publications, or technical reports for research sponsors.

The motivation to write this article came fromthe observation that the vast majority of papers injournals, conference proceedings, and the majority ofobserved oral presentations do not follow the basic
structure, as outlined in the abstract here. In most cases,
research results are obscured by poor presentation. It is
not possible to quickly understand, either the essence ofthe presented contribution, or the most important researchdetails. This is happening despite the presentation advice
appearing to be quite natural and effective for easy
understanding of contributions made in a given article. ‘If
you do not write well, why should readers believe youwere any more careful in the research itself?’ [E].
Writing contributions in a form that other people
can understand is a very slow process. Excellent
presentation also brings some risks for the evaluation,
due to ‘noise in the refereeing system’ [E]. A novel idea,
well presented, can be claimed to be too simple or eventrivial by reviewers, and the judgment is subjective. Thisauthor believes in simplicity of any original idea as its
ultimate advantage. A number of papers describe newideas only via programming codes, or complicateddiagrams, without presenting clear concise descriptions
and/or figures and illustrations on how they work. This
style could potentially bring favorable opinions from
reviewers with similar attitude on presentation, orwithout real desire to understand the details. A wellunderstood idea also brings the risk of being identified asalready existing by reviewers. When it is novel and if
well understood, it also becomes easier to identify the
drawbacks and criticize it. If a problem statement has a
new name, different from the name well-known in thecommunity (meaning that the literature review is notdone properly), it becomes difficult to identify properreferees for the article and/or to properly judge its
contribution. In summary, there are also reasons not toapply some pieces of advice from this article, if the
publication of an article is the sole motivation.
This article places particular attention to four
key parts of a research report: the title, abstract,
introduction, and to the main body of text. Each of themshould be self-contained and complete to the greatest
possible extent, because there are four different types ofreaders. Among those who will ever see any part of aparticular work, perhaps an estimated 80% (the numbers
are subjective, based on experience of authors) will see
only the title, 15% will read the abstract (and possibly
parts of the conclusion in search for information missingin the abstract), 4% will also read the introduction, andthe remaining 1% will meaningfully go through thewhole paper (some of them may fully read and analyze it,
depending on their particular interests and skills, content
value, and its presentation).
‘A paper should communicate the main ideas ofyour research early and clearly’ [E]. Clear and appealing
text in one part increases the chances that a reader will goto the next part and eventually use and cite the work. The
readers could be important persons: thesis examiners,
reviewers of conferences and journal submissions. They
all have limited time to spend on a particular article andtime should be used wisely, to make the greatest possible
reading and understanding progress for a given amount oftime. Reading time normally grows with the clarity andusefulness of text and presentation. Misleading title
narrows the readership. If the abstract does not clearlystate the contribution made, and fails to attract the reader,then the reader may not advance to the introduction (orthe first chapter of a thesis). Sometimes it is beneficial to‘convince’ an important reader (examiner, reviewer) that
there is no need to study much the main body of theresearch report, if the introductory text properly
presented the contribution and gave a clear picture of thecoming text. ‘A reader who understands the structure andbig ideas can better appreciate the details’ [E].

2.

to be solved. An example is description of a ‘novel’
software architecture whose evaluation remains fully
subjective, without defining any problem to solve. This
does not mean that proposing a new architecture is not avalid research ‘problem’. However, it so only when the
integral parts of doing research are addressed in the article:
what problem is resolved by the design of a newarchitecture, what existing architectures are, what are
assumptions and limitations made, how new architecturecompares with existing ones etc.
Another example is research article [S1] onteaching recursion in the first computer science course.
Existing textbooks suggested complicated or no proofs
that recursive Fibonacci numbers and binomial
coefficientsalgorithms
haveexponential
timecomplexities (existing teaching solutions), which wereproven on final exams to not be well understood bystudents. Article [S1] described an elegant proof in twolines, easily understood by all students. The proof does
not have to be original itself; the main novelty is in
applying this proof in the classroom. In general, theidentification and application of existing concepts andtechniques to new domains and problem statements is a
research activity and represents contributions.

3.

SELECTION OF ‘TITLE’

The selected title of an article should enable theexpert to figure out the essence of the basic idea(s) andthe main contribution(s), even without reading the paper[M1]. Further, the title should induce the reader to think
deeply over the "philosophy" of the contribution
described in the paper [M1]. An example is the title of[KNRS]. It states the problem (‘georouting’), the area(‘sensor networks’), desired properties (‘beaconless’,‘guaranteed delivery’) and essence of new idea (‘selectand protest based’). Proper title leads to more ‘hits’ in
Google Scholar searches. An imprecise title may bringwrong referees or examiners for the work, and lessappreciation.

RESEARCH AND PROBLEM SOLVINGIs research a problem solving exercise? Are there someresearch activities that do not solve any problems? Webelieve that this is not the case. If there is no problem tobe solved than the related activity could be a development,
implementation, or another type of work. Consequently,
any research article should make a clear problem
statement.
We were frequently faced with articles, even
grant proposals, that in fact do not have any real problem

4. ABSTRACT:PROTECTING THE CONTRIBUTION
In our opinion, the abstract is the most important part of a
research article. Suppose that one has five minutes oftime for an oral presentation, or a few hundred words ofwritten space to protect a new idea and contribution andgain deserved recognition. Note that in many cases
abstracts are offered freely while the whole paper needs
time (and sometimes also financial resources) todownload or acquire. Examples are CiteSeer andSpringer databases. How would this time or space beused wisely?
The time/space limitation is almost naturally
enforced. Researchers may not pay attention to an article
if the abstract does not make convincing statements.
Instead of listing topics covered in the article, abstract
should convey the essential information found in thepaper. The author should make an effort to claim thecontribution properly at the most visible place, and not
expect readers to do so. Consequently, a good idea may
not be noticed by the research community, and those who
reinvent it at a later time will get credit instead of theinitial inventor [M1].
The authors generally agree with the five partstructure of the abstract as described in [M1], as follows(using a simple and concise language):a) Problem statement of the research under consideration;b) A short list of existing solutions and what theirdrawbacks are, from the point of view of the above
defined problem statement;c) Essence of the proposed solution, and why it isexpected to be better under the same conditions;d) What type of analysis was done to show that the
proposed solution is really better than any of theexisting ones, from both the performance and thecomplexity points of view;e) What the major numerical highlights of the analysis
are. Here we recommend also some qualitative (nonnumeric) highlights that may be more feasible andhelpful in many cases.
The length of each part should be flexible. For
example, the proposed solution could be the first one (asimple statement with few words for b)), while the newidea (c)) may take about half of the abstract to expresswith sufficient intuition.
The abstract should be written for researchersthat are familiar with the research area, and can grasp thecontribution easily. Some of them could have worked on
the same or related problems. A clear abstract is the key
to having the work properly credited in other people’swork. One should envision literature reviews offorthcoming papers by other researchers. They could
simply ‘cut and paste’ the abstract into their articles,
which then serves as an extended ‘patent’ protection.
This could be even done semi-automatically, as others do
not really need to read or understand the whole article, tocite it properly. If an abstract is without proper content,
citations to the article in other papers may not be very
informative either. Should they be? It is the author’s
obligation in the first place to properly describe the ideawith limited space, without expecting that someone else
will do this later on behalf of the authors.
Examiners and reviewers will especiallyappreciate such an abstract to have a friendly start withthe text, and obtain a clear picture in a very short periodof time. Misleading abstracts are unfortunately quite
common practice in research literature. The limited spaceis too often simply wasted by writing general sentences
about the field and excessive explanations about the
problem, that should be part of the introduction or
Chapter 1. It is best to first answer the above five‘questions’, then see whether there is space left to sayanything else.
This structure is also suitable for performance
evaluation type of articles. In a performance evaluation
based article, the problem is to determine the best
protocol under various conditions. Existing performance
evaluations are existing solutions. What are theirdrawbacks? Why is this evaluation novel, and what new
insights about the protocols are gathered? How does
performance evaluation data in this article compare toprevious ones?
Survey type of articles however may have a
different presentation style. A survey should describe all
relevant solutions, classify them according toassumptions made and some properties (that is, present ataxonomy), and draw some conclusions. The contributionof a survey article should still be clarified. It could be thefirst survey on a given topic or problem, or may present
sufficient novel material not covered in existing tutorials,
or it could give a taxonomy not seen previously. The
survey may also properly describe existing solutions, in aclear and concise manner, compared to existing surveys.
A statement of gain the reader will obtain by reading thesurvey or tutorial article is needed in the abstract.
Detailed instructions for writing survey articles can befound on the website of the second author.

5.
CONTENT OF INTRODUCTION OR
CHAPTER 1
In brief, the introduction of a paper intended to be
published in a journal or conference, or Chapter 1 of amaster or doctoral thesis, should present the same content(summary of the article), in the same order, as theabstract, with more space provided. Normally it is about
ten times longer as a rough approximation. There is also
space to address some possibly additional items, such as
motivation.
While an introduction is normally a single
section, Chapter 1 should have separate headings toaddress the structure and natural flow in the explanation.
The abstract may be sufficient for an expert in the field(researchers who have worked on the same problem). The
Introduction or Chapter 1 should suffice to comprehend
the essence of contribution for people generally working
in the area. They should be able to correctly understandwhat the important aspects of the contribution are, andhow good the contribution is.
In our view, the introduction or Chapter 1
should present sufficient information, and be sufficiently
self-contained, so that important readers and evaluators
do not need to read the rest of text, being assured in thecontribution made, and validity of the text to follow. If
they are pressured with shortage of time and the need tomake a decision on the value of the article, or a citation
and reference to it in their own work, let this part give
answers to all important possible questions, and earnappreciation. Readers and especially followers of thespecific research directions will appreciate such a styleand will prefer mentioning such work rather than thework of someone else who remained unclear in the
introduction and the article was never read due to the lackof time or loss of confidence.
Here are recommended sections, or subsections,or parts of an introduction.
i)
ii)

iii)

iv)
v)
vi)

vii)

General overview of the field (basic facts
needed to tune the reader to the thesis or paper);Problem statement (precise definition andimportance); very technical definitions andstatements should be avoided (and presented inlater text) and instead, good intuition for the
involved definitions or facts should be presented
and even illustrated if desirable.
Existing solutions and their criticism (limited
normally to only those directly relevant to thecontribution of the thesis); a motivation for
doing research on the topic should be stated;
Contributions (proposed solutions; why they are
expected to be better; essence of the idea(s) usedin proposed solutions);
Conditions, context, assumptions and limitationsof the research done;
Analysis (theoretical, experimental, simulations,
implementations,…) done in the thesis; underwhat conditions and scenarios is the new
solution the best one?
In case of thesis work, it is recommended to add
specific statements about the contribution of thethesis author to the thesis work, and thecontribution of the thesis to the research field.
This is normally done by listing all existing andintended journal and conference publications outof the thesis, which include their authors andviii)

titles, and references to proper sections in thethesis.
The structure and content of the rest of the
document is normally outlined at the end of an
introduction or Chapter 1 in a single paragraph.

Sections iii), iv), vi), should normally present
the highlights, with pointers to later sections and chaptersthat provide details. The introduction should attempt
therefore to present a full version of the article in a
concise, readable and intuitively clear form.

6.
LITERATURE REVIEW: THE NEXTSECTION OR CHAPTER
Chapter or section 2 should give a full literature review.
Many articles present it at the end of the paper, leaving
the reader to wonder about the actual contribution untilthe very end of the text. The literature review (or related
work section) should collect all known results relevant to
the problem stated, whether or not they are used in the
proposed contributions. No additional literature review
shall be added in later chapters, where the text could only
refer to well known results (e.g. those covered in theundergraduate computer science program such as
Dijkstra's shortest path algorithm, sorting algorithms etc.)
which can be reasonably assumed to be public knowledge
for the particular field. In these cases, they should not be
described (that is, if there is a need to describe how a‘well known’ shortest path algorithm works, then thisshould be done in the literature review section).
It is important to underline the need for a clear
cut, clear separation line, between existing work andnew ideas being presented in the paper. There are in fact
three such separation lines: one in each of the abstract,
introduction (or Chapter 1) and the most important one
between the literature review section and the rest of text.
That line should be very sharp.
In some cases, the paper may present minor
variations, with major consequences, of an existing
solution. In this case, the contribution may look large inthe essence, but short in text. This author still advocatesto separate these two, even if it means a single paragraphof text in describing novel ideas.
This approach however may not receive positive
feedback from reviewers that do not share thisphilosophy. Separation lines are then needed inside thetext itself as a compromise. The main problem withplacing separation lines inside the text, rather than byplacing content in different sections, is that the separation
between existing and new ideas easily remains unclear if
the presentation is not very careful. Of course, theassumption here is that the primary intention was to behonest with the contribution made in the article.
One of the major pieces of advice is to do areally thorough literature review on the suggested topic.
In most observed cases, however, this does not occur.
This is also not really advocated by most supervisors. It
is also not emphasized in other papers seen on how towrite research articles. We have even seen PhD theses
without any literature reviews on the topic. This advice
steams from a scientific view of doing research, where
the best solution is searched for given model andassumptions. There exist also an innovation view of
research, where a good solution is desired for a practicalproblem. In the scientific point of view, the new solution
should be compared with competing solutions, the best
existing solutions under particular assumptions, metrics,
and models. In the innovation viewpoint, the emphasis israther on the validation of the new idea, with/out
comparing it with something else that exists. A veryfrequent problem, however, is to mix the two approaches,by attempting to solve a practical problem by using its
simple modeling (every model is incorrect but some ofthem are useful) but evaluating it in a different ‘practical’model [S2]. Another issue is comparison with solutions
that use different metric and assumptions from the oneused in new solution (unfair advantage) [S2].
While on one hand doing a thorough literature
review could prove to be ‘dangerous’ for the new idea inmind, it is expected to be very rewarding in the longterm, as it opens the views to different models,assumptions, different problem statements, and offers
material for new contributions with much greater
compensation for potentially lost contribution. In fact,ideas are normally credited to original authors anyway,
not to those that duplicate it. One of the identified
problems is that the existing practice is to merely cite apaper on the subject of study, without thoroughly
studying it, or describing it properly, which opens thedoor for an even more dangerous duplication, one thateliminates the ‘excuse’ of possible ‘independent work’.
It is very easy for a reviewer or even examiner
to save his time by observing a missing importantreference, and claiming that that the particular reference
may solve the same problem in a better way. That may or
may not be true, but some decisions are not recoverable(e.g. in the case of conference submissions).
The list of references is important for theselection of reviewers, especially when submitting to ajournal. Editors normally check the reference list in
search of reviewers working on same or similar problem.
If the list appears ‘tiny’ on the exact problem statement,
editors may search for reviewers on ‘Google Scholar’ forinstance. Reviewers selected that way may be subjectivein their evaluation if their important relevant work was
not cited in the submission (‘the paper does not cite me,therefore something is wrong here’).
For every discussed reference, it is very
important to relate them to the stated problem andcontribution in one of several ways: it does not exactly
solve the same problem, it solves the same problem but
makes different assumptions about the system, it does notmeet certain desirable properties (e.g. it is not real-time
solution), it has some additional limitations, or it makes
the same assumptions but does not work well undercertain important conditions and scenarios that are theprimary target of the new solution. A clear statement foreach identified solution in this respect is recommended.
The space allocated to describing existing solutions
should also be ‘proportional’ to its closeness to the newidea and assumptions. Some solutions do not need to be
described at all, and a simple convincing statement of
why they do not solve the problem at hand may suffice.
Other solutions may need a brief description of thegeneral philosophy of the solution before being able to
make a similar statement. Otherwise the solution is acandidate to be a competing one, and requires more
attention and space. Such existing solutions need clear,concise descriptions of how they work, so that readers
can understand a comparison. They are targets for‘defeat’ by analytical and/or experimental comparisons.
There might be a clear reason why a particular competing
solution is inferior to the newly proposed one. Inability to‘defeat’ a particular solution certainly leaves a negative
impression on readers.
In summary, the literature review should be a
critical one, focused around desired outcome andcontribution relevant. It should discuss advantages anddrawbacks of known solutions that are relevant to the
problem studied, and also discuss the relevance of eachreviewed item to the topic studied and newly proposedsolutions.

7.
THE REMAINING CHAPTERS ORSECTIONS
The remaining chapters should present new contributions(including conditions, assumptions, and limitations,where appropriate) and their analysis. That is, the verysame items listed above should be presented in full,preferably in the same order. Assumptions refer to thesimplifications made in the model used, so that thesolution can be easily understood, while preserving mostproperties of a realistic model and enabling easy
theoretical and/or experimental tractability. Analysis
could be analytical, by simulation or implementation.
Analytical analysis could provide, for example, the proof

of validity of the major ideas of the paper. It could lead toa rough estimation of the performance (e.g. message
complexity for communication among sensors or
average/worst time complexity for computation in sensor
processors), calculation of parameter values for
simulation, and other relevant properties and findings.
‘When presenting an algorithm, first state what
the output is and preferably the key idea, before
discussing steps’ [E]. One should always keep in mind
that a figure may be worth a thousands words. Importantnew concepts, and new ideas, should be illustrated byexamples and figures as appropriate, to help the reader inunderstanding them, and to demonstrate one’s own
understanding of these concepts. This author found most
mistakes in student’s understandings by simply asking
them to give different types of examples. The same iswith readers. Examples should not be trivial, butmeaningful and helpful.
Figures with examples, and diagrams withperformance evaluation, should not be overly repetitive.
A new example is welcome if it offers somethingessentially different and insightful compared to previous
ones. Similarly, additional performance diagrams arewelcome only if they offer new performance data,
substantially different from data in previous diagrams, forthe selected set of parameter values. Repetitive diagrams
offering similar value for the analysis should be omitted
or moved to an appendix of a thesis. The overall
contribution is not evaluated by the overall length of athesis or paper, but by its technical content. In otherwords, the additional size in page length should bejustified by the additional contribution, explanation andinsight made.
Captions deserve special attention, which isneglected in a typical written presentation [M1]. Reading
only the figure captions of the paper should almost
substitute the first rough reading of the entire paper.
Pseudo-code description (if used) should include themnemonic name for the algorithm, its input and output(such pseudocodes should be preceded in text with clear
concise descriptions of same algorithm). In case ofsimulation diagrams, parameter values and protocol
names must be clearly visible and/or listed in the caption.
Captions should include title, description of one or more
phenomena that deserve attention, explanation (essential
reason for observed behavior) and possibly the
implication for the protocol/system design.
It is a very difficult task to find a new solutionthat is best in all circumstances. The primary task in thesimulation part of an article is to identify assumptions,
metrics, models and parameter values for which the new
solution is better than existing ones. The authors shouldsearch for scenarios in which their solution is the best.

More details on simulation can be seen in [S2]. One
should not be overly optimistic about new ideas andmake unfounded claims. A smaller but justified claim isbetter than a large unfounded one. Bigger claims open
bigger doors for attacks by referees and examiners.
Referees may easily turn down the complete idea becauseof an unsupported large claim, but can also easily accept
even a minor contribution if it is well documented andproven.
One of the key pieces of advice is to include all
the possible criticisms of your own idea and contribution
directly in the article. It is much better that authors
criticize their own work and demonstrate good judgment
than to leave such ‘pleasure’ to the examiners andreferees. Authors should show that they are in full controlof the problem, solutions, and their performance.

8.

ON CONCLUSIONS AND REFERENCES

Some people read only the abstract and the conclusion.
Thus important things missing in the abstract should beplaced in the conclusion section. It could state what has
been achieved by the current research, and could discussand reiterate major advantages and drawbacks of the new
solution. The most important part of the conclusion
section is to list future work that can be done using theresults of the current article. This may offer readers withsome open problems to study, and such feasible problems
could lead to later citations of the article. Sometimes thespace can be used to in fact briefly outline some ideasthat the author intends to develop further. The ownershipof some other possible solutions, not fully explored, tothe same or a relevant problem, or subject of yourforthcoming different article, can be protected byoutlining them briefly in the conclusion section, possibly
even with reference to an upcoming article.
One recommendation is to follow a +-+ patternin the introduction and the main text. That is, to start withpositive enthusiastic comments about new work and thecontribution, then become realistic and list all the
drawbacks and limitations, but then finish on a positivenote, with a clear statement about the value of the newcontribution. It is important that the reader finishes
reading the article with a positive impression. (S)hemight be writing a follow up report afterwards.

9.

OVERALL FLOW AND APPEARANCE

It is important to check if the article has an
overall flow, a smooth transition from topic to topic,
from familiar information to new information. Withineach of the abstract, introduction, or main text, repetitions

should be avoided. One statement and its description
should be given in a single, most suitable place in thatpart of the article.
Writing should be clear and concise. ‘Writing
more clearly will help you think more clearly and often
reveals flaws or ideas that had previously been invisible
even to you’ [E]. ‘Use shorter and more direct phrases
wherever possible’ [E]. Each concept or algorithm shouldhave a descriptive name. Terms should be normallydefined before using them, and should be used precisely
and consistently. Ambiguities should be avoided. The
text should discuss how related concepts are different
and/or similar. Avoid passive voice. Do not use works
like ‘obviously’ or ‘clearly’, which my insult reader’sintelligence [E].
Finally, after the scientific presentation isdeemed acceptable, it is time to pay more attention to thelanguage used and the overall appearance. It is very
important to use proper English grammar and sentence
structure, and avoid slangs. Misprints must be corrected.
One always expects very professional referees andexaminers. Their opinion is partially subjective,
compared to, say, an evaluation expected from aknowledgeable robot. A good approach in extracting a
positive impression for the subjective part of the overall
evaluation is by showing the overall care taken in writing
the article.

10. RELATED WORKRESEARCH ARTICLESONPRESENTINGThis literature review is limited to items that are
not elaborated elsewhere in this article. There is plenty ofadvice for writing research articles that can be found on
the Internet. However, most of it deals primarily withlanguage, grammar and formatting issues, and does not
go deeply into discussing how to properly and effectively
present the essence of the contribution made in a given
article.
Instructions for preparing transparencies and oralpresentations [M2] are complete and we found no need toelaborate on them further here. A particular feature in[M1, M2] is to use semantics based layout strategy ontransparencies.
Alba [A] presented some brief comments andadvice addressing the following problems that students
and new researchers face: structure the document,
formatting guides, content, readability, electronic editionand diffusion. The suggested structure of the document is:
Introduction, Problems (this part includes literature
review), Resolution methods, Experiments, Results,
Conclusions, and References. Resolution methods shouldstress the novelty of the method and approach, a specificnon-ambiguous explanation of the method (e.g.
pseudocodes), mathematical or formal issues of proposed
techniques, parameters and most important decisions
made to select these methods or techniques, plans tosolve the problems with proposed ‘wonderful’ methods,
and expected results after having done so. The
experiments section should present the goals and sets ofexperiments, parameters, algorithms and problem
instances intended for use (preferably in table form),measures, statistical analysis, and criteria to judge thevalue of the results, steps to follow to get the resultswith justification.
Woodford [W] lists the overall steps in writing ajournal article, dissertation or grant proposal, in a briefnote, while the full text is available in his book. It
begins from asking whether the time is right for writing,to analyzing and possibly answering the examiner’s
remarks. Ernst [E] discusses rejection. ‘In most cases,
reviews offer an opportunity to improve the work’ [E].
To avoid reputation of submitting ‘a half-baked work’[E], only submit to obtain new information (including
concerns not predicted in advance).
Recommendations for writing articles also
depend on the research field. Sherrill [S] briefly describedrecommendations for writing articles in the chemistry
discipline. The parts of a paper are: Abstract,
Introduction, Methods (or Theoretical Methods), Resultsand Discussion, and Conclusions. Similar structure forpapers can be found in other fields, e.g. psychology.
The structure of a research paper is less rigorousin mathematics field. Normally papers are collections oftheorems and proofs, and every known proof from othersources is cited in the text where needed. Here are a few
of pieces of advice by Cheney [C] that are found to bequite relevant for computing and engineering articles(e.g. description of algorithms, protocols and systems).
‘Mathematics is preeminent in its striving for absolute
precision in its formal written text. Precision in writing is
not easily attained, but one always begins by using thecorrect word at the proper place and by carefully
constructing each sentence. We also advise against theuse of slang, colloquialisms, and other non-standard
linguistic devices’ [C].
‘Use English descriptions and English text in
preference to mathematical symbolism wherever
possible.’
[C].
‘It
makes
for
smootherreading…mathematical symbolism is by its nature
intimidating, even to mathematicians. There is nothing so
daunting as having to read a page of formulas! Keep theformulas to a minimum and avoid symbols if ordinary
language will do as well. There may be cases where, forgood reason, one wishes to violate this rule.’ [C].
Another good reason to avoid math formalism is
the impact of possible misprints. A single misprint
anywhere in a fully mathematical formula and theexpression can have disastrous consequence for theinterpretation and understanding, not only of thatparticular formula but the rest of the text. In some cases,
the reader is even unable to continue reading the article.
On the other hand, a single misprint in an English
sentence, even an awkward English sentence, allows thereader to automatically correct and continue reading. In
some cases, the best approach is to give a mathexpression followed by its ‘decoding’ with analogous
statements in English. Sometimes it is simply not easy to
avoid math symbolism without loosing precision.

11.

WRITING GOOD SYSTEMS PAPERS

The advice so far was applicable to technical papers ingeneral. To address the readership of IEEE Transactions
on Parallel and Distributed Systems, we address somespecific problems in ‘systems’ papers, following closely[LR]. The first advice is to read [LR] in full, because ofdetailed explanations with a light, occasionally humorous
style, nevertheless with a very serious intent. They listed
thirty-odd questions to help writing a better technicalpaper. Questions related to originality of ideas, focus,
presentation and writing style are close to the discussion
here, often given from a complementary perspective.
Questions specific to ‘systems’ papers are about reality,
lessons learned and choices made. Does the paper
describe something that has actually been implemented?
If so, how has it been used, and what has this usage
shown about the practical importance of the ideas?
Otherwise, do the ideas justify publication now? Whatauthors learned and what should the reader learn from thepaper? How generally applicable are these lessons? What
were the alternatives considered at various points, why
the choices were made the way they were, and did the
choices turn out to be right? How realistic areassumptions? Does the formal model, if presented, givenew information, and is it supported by any deep
theorem?
‘Writing a good paper is a hard work, but you will be
rewarded by a broader distribution and greater
understanding of your ideas within the community ofjournal and proceedings readers.’ [LR].
REFERENCES[A] Enrique Alba, Writing a scientific/technical report,
September 2002, www.lcc.uma.es/~eat/pdf/sw.pdf,
1-6.
[C] Ward Cheney, Advice for students writing reports,
theses, and dissertations, department ofmathematics, University of Texas at Austin, May
2000, www.ma.utexas.edu/users/cheney/.
[E] Michael Ernst, Writing a technical paper, April 2005,
www.cs.washington.edu/homes/mernst/advice/writ
e-technical-paper.html .
[KNRS] Hanna Kalosha, Amiya Nayak, Stefan Ruehrup,
Ivan Stojmenovic, Select and protest based
beaconless georouting with guaranteed delivery inwireless sensor networks, IEEE INFOCOM,
Phoenix, Arizona, USA, April 13-18, 2008.
[LR] Roy Levin and David D. Redell, How (and hownot) to write a good systems paper, ACM
Operating Systems Review, 17, 3, July 1983, 3540.
[M1] Veljko Milutinovic, The best method forpresentation of research results, IEEE TCCA
Newsletter, September 1996, 1-6.
[M2] Veljko Milutinovic, A good method to prepare anduse transparencies for research presentations,
IEEE TCCA Newsletter, March 1997, 8 pp.
[S] David Sherrill, Writing journal articles, Georgia
InstituteofTechnology,
May
2003,
vergil.chemistry.gatech.edu/resources/writingpapers.pdf , 1-3.
[S1] Ivan Stojmenovic, Recursive algorithms in computerscience courses, IEEE Transactions on Education,
Vol. 43, No. 3, August 2000, 273-276.
[S2] Ivan Stojmenovic, Simulations in wireless sensor
and ad hoc networks, IEEE Communications
Magazine, Vol. 46, No. 12, December 2008, 102107.
[W] Peter Woodford, Writing a journal article,
dissertation, or research-grant proposal: Steps tofor graduate students and others, CBE Views, Vol.
22, No. 1, 1999, 12-13.