Scientific Writing

Chapter 3: Reading and Reviewing

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

1

Prepared by:

​

• Alya Hamidi
• Sidra Hashimi

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

2

Research Begins

• It takes years to acquire a deep, thorough appreciation of the area, and of existing knowledge and its limitations.
• Reader can identify contributions and values of the paper.
• Can recognize flaws: critically scrutinize whether the flaws are serious or not.
• Reading provides new work, source of knowledge for something that would be appreciated.
• Reviewer is expected to review and understand someone else work.
• Reviewing leads you to look at your own work from a fresh perspective.

​

​

​

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

3

Research Literature

• Literature review provides
• Understand current theory, investigation
• Support for you to make your work novel or innovative
• Literature includes papers or thesis. But not books or survey responses or news articles or Wikipedia pages or science magazines or the like, because they lack interpretation based on specified hypothesis.

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

4

Research Literature (continued)

• Paper reading is not like preparing for exam
• Don’t need to read each line
• Number of papers to be read to find relevance is high
• Number of papers to be read on the specific research is usually small
• Skim through the peppers to know its relevance to research
• Reading moods:
• Browse to find relevant papers
• Read to know the main outcomes of the paper
• Background reading of texts
• Focused reading of key or complex papers to expand understanding
• Reading should not be just galloping your time but a productive cycle of work.

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

5

Finding Research Papers

• Can I just read the survey and continue without reading other papers?
• Reading about a paper that seems relevant is never a substitute for reading the paper itself
• Search terms: from papers, home pages or research team pages; some terms are used with different vocabularies
• Search pages for academic papers (IEEE Xplore, sciencedirect, ACM, etc)
• Research group pages: papers and authors
• Follow up reference in promising research papers
• Browse recent is issues of relevant journals; search relevant and recent conference; use citation index
• Discuss with many people; some papers you have not seem might have been seen by others

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

6

Finding Research Papers (continued)

• Identify whether a paper should be ‘in’ or ‘out’ based on their significance to your research
• Searching for ‘relevant’ papers:
• Does the paper have interesting insights into other research literature?
• Does it establish a benchmark?
• Have the authors found a clever way of proving a theorem that you can apply in your own work?
• Does the paper justify a decision to not pursue some particular line of investigation?
• Other people’s research can have many different kinds of effect on your work.
• Finding significant work: can take months of full-time work

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

7

Research Literature

• Sometimes, you might find a literature that is highly relevant only after your have completed the investigative phase of your research
• Searching and reading are separated activities; so don’t do both at once
• The fact that other people have worked on the some problem does not mean that it is impossible to make further contributions in the area

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

8

Critical reading

• Aim of reading is to develop critical thinking skills.
• Relate each paper in a context of other work that you know.
• A cynical but often accurate rule of thumb is that work that is more than one or two years old and has not been published in a significant venue probably has some serious defect.
• Many people undertake work that did not deserve it was published.
• In short, don’t accept something as true just because it was published.
• Of many researchers trust a particular paper, it is still reasonable to be skeptical of its results, but this needs to be balanced against the fact that, if skepticism is justified, these other researchers are all mistaken.

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

9

Critical reading (continued)

• Read papers by asking critical questions of them, such as:
• Is there a contribution? Is it significant?
• Is the contribution of interest?
• Are the result correct?
• Is the appropriate literature discussed?
• Does the methodology actually answer the initial question?
• Are the proposals and results critically analyzed?
• Are appropriate conclusions drawn from the results, or are there other possible verified?
• Are there any serious ambiguities or inconsistencies?
• Don’t just read the paper; identify contributions and shortcomings.
• Mature perspective is needed for detailed analysis of the pape.
• Literature review should continue alongside research.

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

10

Developing a Literature Review

• The papers should be grouped by topic, and critically discussed in a way that allows the reader to understand their contribution to the field, their limitations, and the questions that they leave open.
• Literature review is challenging.
• Make sure to add notes on each paper and how they relate to each other.
• summarize contribution, evidence used to support the claims, shortcomings or features that are of interest.
• Literature review draft need to be polished for presentation.
• But organization and content needs to be polished regularly.
• Many obvious factors will guide your decisions: how close some other work is to yours, or how influential it has been.
• Some papers that seem relevant earlier might be found not so relevant in the later phases.
• Never delete a discussion about a paper after nothing or typing it, just keep in a separate file.

​

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

11

Authors, Editors, and Referees

• Paper moves from authors to editors and then to referees
• Author should be honest based on the contents of the paper

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

12

Contribution

• Two properties: originality and validity
• originality of a paper is the degree to which the ideas presented are significant, new, and interesting.
• Validity is the degree to which the ideas have been shown to be sound.
• Deciding whether there is sufficient originality to warrant publication is the main task of the referee.
• Impact: how much change would follow from the paper being published and widely read.
• If the only likely effect is passing interest from a few specialists in the area, the paper is minor.
• Organization of existing ideas in a new way or within an alternative framework can also be an original contribution, as can reevaluation of existing ideas or methods.
• Validation can be done by: proof or analysis, modelling, simulation, or experiment, or preferably several of these methods together.
• Validation should be rigorous: carefully described, thorough, and verifiable.

​

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

13

Evaluation of papers

• Most papers have an explicit or implicit hypothesis
• Try to identify it and see its relevance to the whole paper
• Is the contribution timely or only of historical interest?
• Is the topic relevant to the venue's typical readership?
• What is missing? What would complete the presentation? Is any of the material unnecessary?
• How broad is the likely readership?
• Can the paper be understood? Is it clearly written? Is the presentation at an adequate standard?
• Does the content justify the length?
• The number of references in the paper also reflects the quality of the paper

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

14

Reviews

• Excellent in presentation does not justify acceptance
• Active researchers should expect to referee about two to three times as many papers as they submit
• Reviews:
• Decide on acceptance of papers for publication
• Sharing of expertise between scientists
• Unless shortcoming are provided to the author, the same paper will be resubmitted
• Reviewing process:
• Read the paper and make marginal notes
• Sometimes opinions change after reading the whole paper
• Reviews should be constructive

​

​

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

15

Checking Your Review

• When you recommend that a paper be accepted, you should:
• Convince yourself that it has no serious defects.
• Convince the editor that it is of an acceptable standard, by explaining why it is original, valid, and clear.
• List the changes, major and minor, that should be made before it appears in print, and where possible help the author by indicating not just what to change but what to change it; but if there are excessive numbers of errors of some kind, you may instead want to give a few examples and recommend that the paper be proofread.
• In either case you should:
• Provide good references with which the authors should be familiar.
• Ask yourself whether your comments are fair, specific, and polite.
• Be honest about your limitations as a referee of that paper.
• Check your review as carefully as you would check one of your own papers prior to submission.

​

​

Writing for Computer Science

Introduction

Computer Science

Information Systems

16