IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS,

VOL. 21,NO. 2,

FEBRUARY 2010

145

Editor’s Note: How to Write Research Articles in
Computing and Engineering Disciplines
Ivan StojmenovicÇW

RITING contributions in a form that other people canunderstand is a very slow process. The purpose ofthis editorial is to serve as a guideline for making researchpresentations as easy to comprehend as absolutely possible.
Perceived simplicity of any original idea is its ultimate
advantage.
The key advice to a successful presentation is to repeat thedescription of main contribution four times: in the title,abstract, introduction, and text. That is, to make readable,appealing, and as complete as possible versions of the work
using the order of 10, 100, 1,000 and 10,000 words. Each ofthem should be self-contained and complete to the greatest
possible extent. This corresponds to the decreasing portion ofreaders for corresponding parts of the article. To the extent
possible, each of these parts should address, in this order: theproblem statement, existing solutions, the new solution(s),assumptions and limitations, analysis, simulation, andcomparison with the best competing solutions.
Research is a problem solving exercise, differing it fromdevelopment, implementation, or another type of work.
Consequently, any research article should make a clear
problem statement.
The selected title of an article should describe the main
contribution and the essence of the basic ideas used. The
abstract is the most important part of a research article.
Instead of listing topics covered in the article, the abstract
should convey the essential information found in the paper.
The author should make an effort to claim the contribution
properly at the most visible place, in the abstract. It shouldhave the following structure (each part with flexible length):
A problem statement of the research underconsideration.
2. A short list of existing solutions and what theirdrawbacks are, from the point of view of the above
defined problem statement.
3. The essence of the proposed solution, and why it isexpected to be better under the same conditions.
4. What type of analysis (theoretical, experimental,simulations, implementations, etc.) was done toshow that the proposed solution is really better thanany of the existing ones, from both the performanceand the complexity points of view.
5. What the major qualitative and/or numerical highlights of the analysis are.
A clear abstract is the key to having the work properly
credited in other people’s work. Literature reviews offorthcoming papers could simply “cut and paste” the abstract1.

For information on obtaining reprints of this article, please send e-mail to:
tpds@computer.org.
1045-9219/10/$26.00 ß 2010 IEEE

there. The limited space is too often simply wasted by writing
general sentences about the field and excessive explanations
about the problem that should be part of the introduction.
This structure is also suitable for performance evaluation
types of articles, where the problem is to determine the best
protocol under various conditions. Existing performance
evaluations are existing solutions. What are their drawbacks? Why is this evaluation novel, and what new insights
about the protocols are gathered? How does performance
evaluation data in this article compare to previous ones?
In brief, the introduction of a paper should present thesame content, in the same order, as the abstract, with more
space provided. There is also space to address some possiblyadditional items, such as a general overview of the field andmotivation. The introduction should be sufficiently selfcontained to comprehend the essence of contribution forpeople generally working in the area. They should be able tocorrectly understand what the important aspects of thecontribution are, and how good the contribution is. The
problem statement needs precise definition, but very technical definitions and statements should be avoided (andpresented in later text). Instead, good intuition for theinvolved definitions or facts should be presented and evenillustrated if desirable. Existing solutions and their criticism
should be limited normally to only those directly relevant tothe contribution. Conditions, context, assumptions, andlimitations of the research done should be stated. Under
what conditions and scenarios is the new solution the best
one? The structure and content of the rest of the document isnormally outlined at the end of an introduction in a single
paragraph. It should also state the preliminary conference
version of journal submission, if any. The introduction should
therefore attempt to present a full version of the article in a
concise, readable, and intuitively clear form.
Section 2 should give a full literature review. It shouldcollect known results relevant to the problem stated, whether
or not they are used in the proposed contributions. It is
important to underline the need for a clear cut, clear separationline, between existing work and new ideas being presented inthe paper. There are in fact three such separation lines: one ineach of the abstract, introduction, and the most important one
between the literature review section and the rest of the text.
In some cases, the paper may present minor variations,with major consequences, of an existing solution. In this case,the contribution may look large in the essence, but short in
text. It is still advisable to separate these two, even if it means asingle paragraph of text in describing novel ideas.
One of the major pieces of advice is to do a reallythorough literature review on the suggested topic (which will
be quite rewarding in the long run). This advice stems froma scientific view of doing research, where the best solution issearched for given model and assumptions. There also exists
Published by the IEEE Computer Society

146IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON PARALLEL AND DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS,

an innovation view of research, where a good solution isdesired for a practical problem. In the scientific point ofview, the new solution should be compared with competing
solutions, the best existing solutions under particularassumptions, metrics, and models. In the innovation viewpoint, the emphasis is rather on the validation of the newidea, without comparing it with something else that exists.
A very frequent problem, however, is to mix the two
approaches by attempting to solve a practical problem byusing its simple modeling (every model is incorrect, butsome of them are useful), but evaluating it in a different“practical” model. Another issue is comparison withsolutions that use different metrics and assumptions fromthe one used in new solution (unfair advantage).
Every discussed reference should be related to the statedproblem and contribution in one of several ways: It does notexactly solve the same problem; it solves the same problem,
but makes different assumptions about the system; it does
not meet certain desirable properties; it has some additional
limitations; or it makes the same assumptions, but does notwork well under certain important conditions and scenariosthat are the primary target of the new solution. A clear
statement for each identified solution in this respect isrecommended. The space allocated to describing existing
solutions should also be “proportional” to its closeness tothe new idea 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 the generalphilosophy of the solution before being able to make asimilar statement. Otherwise, the solution is a candidate 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/orexperimental 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 criticalone, focused around desired outcome and contribution
relevant. It should discuss advantages and drawbacks ofknown solutions that are relevant to the problem studied,and also discuss the relevance of each reviewed item to thetopic studied and newly proposed solutions.
The remaining sections should present new contributions(including conditions, assumptions, and limitations, whereappropriate) and their analysis. That is, the very same items
listed above should be presented in full, preferably in thesame order. Assumptions refer to the simplifications made in
the model used so that the solution can be easily understood,
while preserving most properties of a realistic model andenabling easy theoretical and/or experimental tractability.
Analysis could be analytical, by simulation, or by implementation. Analytical analysis could provide, for example, theproof of validity of the major ideas of the paper. It could leadto a rough estimation of the performance (e.g., message
complexity or average/worst time complexity for computation), calculation of parameter values for simulation, andother relevant properties and findings.
After stating the input and the output of an algorithm(which should also be given a mnemonic name), the key

VOL. 21, NO. 2,FEBRUARY 2010

idea should be described (clearly and concisely) before
discussing steps.
One should always keep in mind that a figure may be
worth a thousand words. Important new concepts, and new
ideas, should be illustrated by examples and figures asappropriate, to help the reader in understanding them, and todemonstrate one’s own understanding of these concepts.
Examples should not be trivial, but meaningful and helpful.
Figures with examples and diagrams with performance
evaluation should not be overly repetitive. A new example
is welcome if it offers something essentially different andinsightful compared to previous ones. Similarly, additional
performance diagrams are welcome only if they offer new
performance data, substantially different from data inprevious diagrams, for the selected set of parameter values.
Repetitive diagrams offering similar value for the analysis
should be omitted. The additional size in page length should
be justified by the additional contribution, explanation andinsight made.
Captions deserve special attention. Reading only thefigure captions of the paper should almost substitute for the
first rough reading of the entire paper. In the 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 (essentialreason for observed behavior), and possibly the implication
for the protocol/system design.
It is a very difficult task to find a new solution that isbest in all circumstances. The primary task in the simulation part of an article is to identify assumptions, metrics,models, and parameter values for which the new solution isbetter than existing ones. The authors should search for
scenarios in which their solution is the best. One should not
be overly optimistic about new ideas and make unfoundedclaims. A smaller but justified claim is better than a large
unfounded one.
One of the key pieces of advice is to include all of thepossible 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 toleave such “pleasure” to the examiners and referees.
Authors should show that they are in full control of theproblem, solutions, and their performance.
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 newsolution. The most important part of the conclusion section
is to list future work that can be done using the results ofthe current article. This may offer readers some open
problems to study, and such feasible problems could lead tolater citations of the article. Sometimes the space can beused to in fact briefly outline some ideas that the author
intends to develop further.
One recommendation is to follow a + - + pattern in theintroduction and the main text. That is, to start with positive
enthusiastic comments about new work and the contribution, then become realistic and list all the drawbacks andlimitations, but then finish on a positive note, with a clear
statement about the value of the new contribution.

STOJMENOVIC: EDITOR’S NOTE: HOW TO WRITE RESEARCH ARTICLES IN COMPUTING AND ENGINEERING DISCIPLINES

It is important to check if the article has an overall flow, asmooth transition from topic to topic, from familiar
information to new information. Within the abstract,introduction, or main text, repetitions should be avoided.
One statement and its description should be given in asingle, most suitable place in that part of the article.
Writing should be clear and concise. It helps in revealing
flaws or new ideas. Shorter and more direct phrases should beused wherever possible. Each concept or algorithm shouldhave a descriptive name. Terms should be normally defined
before using them, and should be used precisely andconsistently, ambiguities should be avoided, the text should
discuss how related concepts are different and/or similar,
and passive voice should be avoided. Do not use words like“obviously” or “clearly,” which may insult the reader’sintelligence.
Finally, after the scientific presentation is deemed acceptable, it is time to pay more attention to the language used andthe overall appearance. It is very important to use proper
English grammar and sentence structure, and avoid slang
and colloquialisms. Misprints must be corrected.
Precision in writing is not easily attained, but one always
begins by using the correct word at the proper place and by
carefully constructing each sentence. English descriptions
and English text has preference to mathematical symbolism
wherever possible, for smoother reading. Keep the formulas
to a minimum and avoid symbols if ordinary language will doas well. Mathematical symbolism is by its nature intimidating, even to mathematicians. 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 consequences for the interpretation and understanding, not only of that particular
formula, but the rest of the text. The reader may even be
unable to continue reading the article. In some cases, the best
approach is to give a math expression followed by its“decoding” with analogous statements in English. However,often it is simply not easy to avoid math symbolism withoutloosing precision.
The advice so far was applicable to technical papers ingeneral, including “systems” papers. “Systems” papers
should discuss the 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 theideas? Otherwise, do the ideas justify publication now?
What did the authors learn and what should the reader
learn from the paper? How generally applicable are theselessons? What were the alternatives considered at various
points, why were the choices made the way they were, anddid 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.
Please refer to http://www.computer.org/portal/web/
csdl/transactions/tpds for a full version of this editorial.

Ivan Stojmenovic
Editor-in-Chief

147