Bogdan Dumitrescu, Writing a scientific article

1. 1
Writing a Scientific Article
Bogdan Dumitrescu
“Politehnica” University of Bucharest, Romania, and
Tampere University of Technology, Finland

2. 2
General contents
What is a scientific article ?
When do you start writing ?
General structure of an article
Style issues
Review process
Revising a paper
...plus some English and a big homework

3. 3
1. What is a scientific article ?
A scientific article
is a written communication presenting results of
scientific research
may contain theoretical results and their proofs
often presents experimental data that support the
theory
is addressed mostly to specialists
is published in a journal, typically after a peer-review
process

4. 4
Types of articles
There are two main types of scientific articles
Research articles: dedicated to communication of original
research results. Depending on the length:
Regular (full) papers: length e.g. 8-10 pages double column or
20-30 pages single column (draft format)
Letters (technical notes, etc.): shorter, e.g. 4-5 pages
Review (survey, overview) articles: synthesis of recent
results in a field, a topic, a problem. No original
contribution, but typically the authors have significantly
worked in the area and are recognized specialists

5. 5
Full paper or letter ?
You need original contributions for both !
If theoretical contributions are minimal, probably
a letter is better
Letter also better if you improve on other results,
without coming with an original approach
If in doubt, write the paper. You’ll decide when
the paper is almost ready
Warning: some journals don’t accept both letters
and full papers

6. 6
Comments and replies
A less significant type of article: the “comments”
Comments are very short
Referring to a previously published article, they
point out a significant error and maybe give a cure
affirm that the original contribution was actually
published elsewhere
give a shorter or more elementary proof
A “reply” is an answer of the authors of the initial
article

7. 7
Terminology examples (1)
Automatica
Survey papers - Extensive reviews of established or emerging
research topics or application areas
Papers - Detailed discussion involving new research,
applications or developments. [10 printed pages, i.e. 10 000
words.]
Brief papers - Brief presentations of new technical concepts and
developments. [6 printed pages, i.e. 6000 words.]
Technical communiqués - New useful ideas and brief pertinent
comments of a technical nature. [4 printed pages, i.e. 4000
words.]
Correspondence Items

8. 8
Terminology examples (2)
IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing
Regular paper (max 30 double-spaced pages, 11pt
font)
Correspondence items (max 12)
IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control
Full paper (max 32 double-spaced pages, 12pt)
Technical notes and correspondence (max 12-15
pages)

9. 9
Where do you publish ?
Target: best journal that might accept the paper
Why ?
good audience—many potential readers
more likely that your article will be cited
as a researcher (even only for PhD) or professor, your
publication list is primarily evaluated based on the
journals
(a refined evaluation is done based on the articles
themselves, but you must survive the first evaluation)

10. 10
Narrow the target from the beginning
Before starting to write your paper, choose at
most 2-3 journals, one of which will be the final
destination of the paper
Check the requirements of these journals: format
of the submission, length, other details
Download Latex or Word templates
Although they affect only marginally what you’ll
write, these details provide a useful framework
and free your mind for the main job—writing

11. 11
How do you tell a good journal ?
Tradition and reputation:
you have read many good articles from it
famous researchers have published in it
your professors used it for teaching or research
etc.
Scientometrics information:
impact factor
other quality measures

12. 12
Tradition vs. noname
Journals edited by societies with tradition are
usually good (or at least not bad)
IEEE, IFAC, SIAM, IET—good labels, generally
you can rely on the title of the journal to know its
contents
Relatively new journals: there is a risk, try to get
as much information as you can
Bad labels: WSEAS is a good example of low
quality (but certainly not the worst)

13. Romanian journals
In the latest few years, many Romanian journals
managed to get indexed in major databases
Before submitting, read at least the contents of a
few issues
Even if the quality is not the best, it is important
that the contents is focused
Counterexample: Metalurgia International
publishes papers on materials science,
management, environment, social sciences

14. Electronic journals
Some journals are published only electronically
They can be good or bad, as the others
These journals are not necessarily free, the
readers have to pay (in fact, only few are free,
and not the best)
At some journals, the authors are offered the
“open acces” option: free access to all readers
The authors have to pay a fee going from 400 to
2000 euro (?)

15. Databases
Good journals are indexed in databases
Reciprocal is not true: databases contain also
lower rank journals, conference papers
Main databases:
ISI web of science (maintained by Thomson Scientific's
Institute for Scientific Information)—the most used
Scopus (Elsevier)—emerging and quite good, but very
accurate only for data after 1995
Google scholar—free, very extensive, but many “gray”
area papers (i.e. “garbage”)

16. 16
Do you have to pay ?
Publishing is free in good journals !
However, some journals impose a maximum
page number (usually big enough)
You’ll have to pay for the extra pages, if your
article is very long (>10 pages at IEEE TSP, >12
pages at IEEE TAC, in the publishing format)
If money is a precondition for publication, go to
other journal

17. Copyright issues
At most good journals, the authors transfer all
rights to the journal
So, the article becomes property of the journal
If you’ll want to reuse pieces of text or figures
(e.g. in a book), you have to ask permission to
the journal
If you want to protect the methods or the devices
described in the article, you must apply for a
patent before publishing
17

18. 18
Conference upgraded to journal ?
Some conferences promise to publish your article
twice
in the proceedings
in a journal (sometimes only selected papers)
This is not exactly good practice…
An article can be published only once !
A few decent journals publish special issues with
conference papers; however, this is clearly stated

19. 19
Impact factor
Impact factor in 2009 is
IF = N_cites / N_papers
N_papers: number of papers published by the
journal in 2007 and 2008
N_cites: number of citations to these papers, in
articles appeared in 2009, in all indexed journals
For engineering journals
IF>1 is good
Max values are typically 3-4

20. 20
Impact factors 2008 (ISI)
IEEE Trans. on Automatic Control 3.293
Automatica 3.178
International Journal of Control 1.130
IET Control Th & Appl 1.070
IEEE Trans. on Signal Processing 2.335
IEEE Signal Proc. Letters 1.203
Signal Processing (EURASIP) 1.256

21. 21
Other measures
Impact factor on 5 years
Immediacy index: N_cites/N_papers from the
same year—not relevant in engineering
Cited half life: median age of articles from a
journal, cited in the current year
Eigenfactor
Warning: different databases give different values
of the performance indices

22. Hirsch index (h-index)
Appropriate for researcher evaluation
Basic idea: it’s important that articles are cited,
not only published
A researcher has Hirsch index h if h of his papers
are cited at least h times (and the other papers
are cited less than h times)
Good especially for researchers with some
experience
Advantage (and drawback): it’s a single number

23. h-index illustration
Order the papers on
decreasing number of
citations
Plot citation numbers
Draw the bisector
Count points above
bisector
Graph source: wikipedia

24. Timeliness
Sometimes you are interested in a (relatively)
quick publication
It’s difficult to find proper statistics on the time
taken by the publication process
Browse the journal and see for a few articles the
relevant dates: “received March 3, 2008; revised
January 12, 2009”
Compare with publication time and you’ll estimate
the duration of the publication process

25. Examples
Journals dedicated to letters may offer a
publication time of about 6 months, e.g. IEEE
Signal Processing Letters
Some journals are slower, but post on their site a
first electronic version of the article right after
acceptance
A few reputed journals are very slow, e.g. IEEE
Transactions on Information Theory, publication
time 2 years

26. 26
2. When do you start writing ?
Different schools of thought: you should start
writing when you
had a presumably good idea
gathered evidence seeming to show the idea is good
completed all proofs, experiments, etc., that will be
included in the article

27. 27
Early start
Write as soon as you start an investigation
Pros:
writing notes or even whole sections helps to clear
your mind, set up a single system of notations
it will be much easier to write the final paper
Cons:
writing too many details may get you confused
you’ll throw away most of the texts
Good if you are able to organize your notes

28. 28
Middle start
Write when you know the general contents of the
paper
This will make writing easier and will lead to
fewer versions and corrections
In the process of writing it will become clear if
there are some gaps in the paper
It is also possible to discover that in fact you have
all necessary material

29. 29
Late start
Write when you have no other choice
Pros:
you have all the material
you can dedicate full time to writing
you should expect no surprises
Cons:
it may be difficult to structure the information
you may be under the pressure of a deadline

30. 30
So, when to start ?
Start as early as you can, especially if you have
coauthors
The time lost by throwing away some of the old
versions is compensated by the quality of the
final paper
Sometimes, you actually gain time, by gaining
more insight to the problem and hence finding
easier good results

31. 31
How to start ?
Most people have troubles when starting a paper
Remember that anything you write releases some
pressure—you have less to write
No matter when you start, it’s better to start with
the most familiar part
Easy starts
statement of the problem
proof of some technical results
figures and tables

32. 32
What first, what last ?
Other starting points
notation section
a general bibliography
tentative paper and section titles
Where not to start
introduction (maybe few notes are good)
abstract
conclusions

33. 33
Editing tools: Latex or Word ?
Word: articles with text, tables and figures
Latex: (much) better for formulas
Personal preference: Latex, by far; the papers
simply look better !
Articles are submitted typically in pdf form
However, when the article is accepted, you’ll
have to give the sources
Most journals accept both Latex and Word, but
it’s better to check from the beginning

34. 34
3. General structure of an article
Title, authors, affiliation
Abstract
Introduction
The problem
Solution
Experimental evidence
Conclusions
Bibliography
Body of the paper
}

35. 35
Good titles
The title is first read in an article
It must be informative and, if possible, attractive
A good title is a very short abstract of the paper
It contains the main keywords that describe
the problem
your original contribution or at least your approach
Basic title: “Method X for Problem Y”
One or two eye-catching words or a good
acronym help

36. 36
Good titles: max information
The following titles tell everything about the paper
Root Locations of an Entire Polytope of Polynomials: it
Suffices to Check the Edges
Edge Theorem for MIMO Systems
Protein is Compressible
A Plurality of Sparse Representations Is Better Than
the Sparsest One Alone

37. 37
Good titles: catchy
Some catchy titles
Greed is Good: Algorithmic Results for Sparse
Approximation
A WISE method for designing IIR filters
The period three means chaos
19 dubious ways to compute the exponential of a
matrix
However, a bad paper with a catchy title is easier
to reject—unsupported arrogance is punished

38. 38
Bad titles: too general
These titles just give the general problem, but
don’t say anything about the solution
“On Factorization of Trigonometric Polynomials”
“On Distributed Averaging Algorithms and Quantization
Effects”
May be good only if it’s the first article on that
topic, but even then they can be improved

39. 39
Words to avoid in the title
Avoid the words “new”, “novel”, “improved”
“New Results on Stability of Discrete-Time Systems
With Time-Varying State Delay”
“A Novel Method for Designing…”
You have an original contribution, so of course
the results are new and the method is novel
When you’ll improve on the “novel method”, how
will you call it: “an improved new method” ?

40. 40
What is wrong in these titles ?
Titles taken from IEEE Trans. Auto. Control, 2009
New Expressions of 2x2 Block Matrix Inversion and
Their Application
On the Value Functions of the Discrete-Time Switched
LQR Problem
Efficient Routing Algorithms for Multiple Vehicles With
no Explicit Communications
Some Properties of Conservative Port Contact
Systems

41. 41
What is wrong in these titles ?
From Continuous-Time Design to Sampled-Data
Design of Observers
Data Transmission Over Networks for Estimation and
Control
Modified Anti-Windup Compensators for Stable Plants
New Results on Modal Participation Factors:
Revealing a Previously Unknown Dichotomy
Further Results on Incremental Input-to-State Stability
Some graph-theoretic approaches to certain facilities
layout models

42. 42
Authors—names
Consider adding a middle initial, like in “Bogdan
A. Dumitrescu”
It’s helpful in differentiating authors in databases,
especially if you have a common last name
Use the initial of your second forename, of your
father’s name
Women: consider continuing using you maiden
name for publishing after marriage

43. 43
Authors—order
If there are several authors, what’s the order ?
Normal procedure: authors are listed in
decreasing order of contribution
Alphabetical order is used in mathematics
Team leader or supervisor is often last
First position in authors list is important: don’t
give it away if you made most of the work

44. 44
Corresponding author
The corresponding author submits the paper and
is the liaison with the journal in all matters
regarding the article
In some journals, the corresponding author is
indicated
Typically, the corresponding author
has the most significant contribution to the article
or/and is the team leader

45. 45
Affiliation
Give all details of your professional address
Avoid giving home address instead
Avoid yahoo or gmail email address
Remember: a bit of your status is given by the
institution for which you work
However, a good paper gets to be published, no
matter the authors and their affiliation

46. 46
Abstract
The abstract has usually 100-200 words
It must contain only essential information
the problem (1 sentence)
the nature of your contribution (1-3 sentences)
the benefits of your contribution (1-2 sentences)
Aim to short, precise sentences
Many people decide reading the article based on
the abstract: state clearly your contribution
Write the abstract when the paper is almost ready

47. 47
Abstract—example 1
An example (Mahmoud 2000), minimalist
The problem:
In this paper, we address the problems of robust H∞
performance analysis and control synthesis for a class of
discrete-time systems with norm-bounded parameter
uncertainty and unknown constant state delay.

48. The contribution:
Through finite-dimensional algebraic Riccati equations,
we provide a necessary and sufficient condition for
designing a memoryless state-feedback controller which
stabilizes the discrete time-delay system under
consideration and guarantees an H∞-norm bound
constraint on the disturbance attenuation for all
admissible uncertainties and unknown delays. An
example is worked out to illustrate the developed theory.
No benefits !

49. 49
Abstract—example 2
A bit too long and too emphatic (Stoica et al
2000), but good
The parameter estimation of moving-average (MA)
signals from second-order statistics was deemed for a
long time to be a difficult nonlinear problem for which no
computationally convenient and reliable solution was
possible. In this paper, we show how the problem of MA
parameter estimation from sample covariances can be
formulated as a semidefinite program that can be solved
in a time that is a polynomial function of the MA order.
Two methods are proposed that rely on two specific
(over)parametrizations of the MA covariance sequence,
whose use makes the minimization of a covariance fitting
criterion a convex problem.

50. The MA estimation algorithms proposed here are
computationally fast, statistically accurate, and reliable.
None of the previously available algorithms for MA
estimation (methods based on higher-order statistics
included) shares all these desirable properties. Our
methods can also be used to obtain the optimal least
squares approximant of an invalid (estimated) MA
spectrum (that takes on negative values at some
frequencies), which was another long-standing problem
in the signal processing literature awaiting a satisfactory
solution.

51. 51
Keywords
Some journals require a few keywords after the
abstract
Start with keywords defining the topic, then
narrow the scope to keywords related to the
problem and your specific contribution
Example:
Discrete systems, robust control, uncertain
parameters, delay factors, H∞ performance

52. 52
Introduction
First section of the paper should contain
historical perspective
problem statement
previous work
original contribution
paper outline, notations
Each of these may have 1-3 paragraphs
The order may be different, some of the points
can be merged

53. 53
Introduction—historical perspective
Show how your problem has appeared
Stress its importance for the potential readers
Cite a few landmark papers in which the problem
was defined and shaped
You may start with a general sentence on the
field, then narrow the description to your problem

54. 54
Introduction—problem statement
Purpose: clear, but short description of your
specific problem
Very few formulas, only those strictly necessary
to describe the problem
Don’t describe in detail the problem if it takes too
much text
Illustrate with a scheme or figure, if possible: this
helps the reader to understand quickly

55. 55
Introduction—previous work
List the main existing solutions to your problem
Try to organize the previous articles into classes
Cite relevant articles for each class
Hint at possible deficiencies of the cited methods,
especially if you improve them
However, praise previous work: being generous
is often rewarded
Have the cited articles at hand, to refresh your
memory

56. 56
Introduction—original contribution
This is an essential part of the introduction
saying what is new
suggesting why it’s better
Describe your contributions clearly, referring to
previous work to show the improvements
Use mainly words, no formulas
Don’t anticipate the technical results, especially
the experimental ones
You may organize the contributions in list form

57. 57
Introduction—outline, notations
The last paragraph of the introduction may
contain a brief outline of the paper
It’s a substitute for a contents
Letters may not need an outline
You can merge the outline with the previous
paragraphs, describing each section as you
advance in the introduction
Main notations can be grouped here, but also
given later

58. 58
Introduction—some rules
Be careful not to repeat sentences from the
abstract or the conclusions
You can repeat the ideas, but try to vary the form
Be less technical—more plain language (but don’t
make it trivial !)
Write the introduction after you have shaped the
paper
Work more on the introduction, here is where
your “literary” skills are most needed

59. 59
Body of the paper
It contains mainly your original contribution, so
you are free to choose the best way to express it
Try to find the simplest way for the reader to
understand your ideas
Don’t describe how the idea came to you, the
reader does not want to replicate your efforts, but
to understand as quickly as possible

60. 60
Make a plan
When attacking the first “final” version, you must
have a presentation plan
Decide
what is the exposition order
how the ideas flow from one to the next
where do you place the proof of each idea
how to organize experimental evidence (tables,
figures)
Don’t be afraid to throw away some of the old text
if it does not go according to the plan

61. 61
The skeleton-flesh technique
Write first a skeleton of the paper
section-subsection titles
sketches of main results
figures and tables
notes, comments, etc.,
Write informally, only for remembering
Try to put all main ideas there, even if formulated
in a very short form
Then…

62. 62
Add flesh
Replace the short notes with full text versions, in
the order you feel easier
Don’t polish too much
Try to have the plan in mind all the time and
check occasionally if you still follow it
Whenever you consider fit, add “bones” to the
skeleton

63. 63
Theorems, propositions and lemmas
If you have theoretical results, it is helpful to
structure them formally as theorems, etc.
Ideally, a theorem is self-supported, i.e. all
necessary information is in its body
Structure the result upon importance
lemma: technical auxiliary result, used e.g. for
demonstrations
proposition: standalone result, not especially important
theorem: standalone significant result, non trivial proof

64. 64
Comments, remarks
Significant results should be commented
Elaborate on their significance !
The comments can be structured formally as
“comments” or “remarks”
Dedicate a comment to each aspect, don’t mingle
them
Try to be precise, even though some comments
refer to intuition offered by the result

65. 65
Use examples
Illustrate your results with simple examples, they
help immensely
Simple does not mean trivial or artificial !
The best type of example is a typical model, to
which you apply your method
It is especially nice if you can carry an example in
several stages, adding features as you advance

66. 66
Experimental results
At least two purposes:
to illustrate your theoretical results
to show their benefits
Compare the results obtained with your approach
with previous methods
It should be clear that your method is better at
least in some scenarios
Organize the experimental results such they are
easy to understand

67. 67
Design examples
A detailed design example is almost always a
good illustration of a method
Get design data from previous literature or from a
practical application
Show clearly that your design is better
Try to find simple comparisons, based e.g. on few
numbers (criteria, performance indices, other
quality measures)

68. 68
How much data ?
How much experimental data should you give ?
enough to support your claims,
but not so much that it’s hard to follow
How to organize ?
relevant values (average, deviation, etc.) in the case of
many runs depending on some arbitrary factors (e.g.
simulated noise)
typical scenarios: one representative scenario out of
many you have tried (always mention the extent of
your experiments, even if you present only a few)

69. 69
Graphs and tables
Graphs and tables are best means for presenting
experimental results
Ideally, each graph or table should illustrate a
single property/behavior of your method
Aggregate information is acceptable if unitary in
some way (e.g. errors and execution times for
approximation methods solving a problem)
At most 4-5 curves in the same graphs, with
easily distinguishable lines (and legend !)

70. 70
Captions
Each figure or table must have a caption
Ideally, the caption is self consistent: it explains
completely the figure/table
However, the caption should be not very long
Refer to the text if needed: “Execution times for
the three methods compared in Example 2”
Conversely, each figure/table must be referred to
in the text; the discussion in the text is normally
longer than the caption

71. 71
Interpretation of the results
Sometimes you can draw some conclusions out
of the experimental results, other than the simple
“my method is the best”
Try to go from specific to general
Do not attempt to explain unexpected results, if
they are scarce, just state their existence
Do not make far-fetched claims

72. 72
Conclusions
The final section of the paper is another abstract
However, now the reader has gone through your
article, so don’t repeat sentences from the
abstract or the introduction
Point out your main contributions, referring to
specific results given in the article (theorems,
experiments, etc.)
Give a general conclusion resulting from the
experimental evidence

73. 73
Conclusions ctd
Point out the major advances with respect to
previous work, as resulting from the article
Last sentences can be dedicated to future work
that you have in mind
This is good for claiming your interest and
showing that the problem has more research
potential
However, don’t forecast any results, just outline
the direction of the future research

74. 74
Bibliography
You must do a thorough bibliographical research
and the article must show it
A good bibliography may contain 10-40 entries
Take care to cite
papers that started the problem
most recent papers on the topic
all articles that are relevant to your approach
Cite journal articles instead of conference papers
Cite books only for standard results

75. 75
Sources
Most of the bibliographical search must be done
before the writing
You must make sure that your idea is original
Bibliographical sources: article databases
Scopus (subscription needed)
ieeexplore (IEEE members can search, subscription
needed for articles)
Google scholar (free search)
other databases…

76. 76
Informal sources
After finding interesting titles and (maybe)
abstracts
google the title, maybe the authors have put the article
on their web page
ask a friend from a university with subscription to
databases
find the email of an author and ask a pdf of the article:
you’ll be surprised how many authors reply kindly

77. 77
How to search ?
Search combinations of relevant keywords
After finding an interesting article, search
the articles in its bibliography
articles by the same authors
articles citing this article
In the beginning it’s difficult to see quickly if an
article is relevant, but you’ll get it in time
Try to organize the articles in categories, it will be
useful later

78. 78
Citation rules
You must refer in the text to all entries in the
bibliography: you must show that you have used
those papers, not that you have read them
Cite whenever you take a result from another
article. Never say “it is well known…”
Give details if possible:
“it is shown in [4, Th.3] that…”
“we take the data from [7], Example 1”

79. 79
Other citation rules
Avoid copying sentences or paragraphs, even if
you quote and give the source
Avoid grouping many citations
“there are many methods for designing filters [1-25]”
“there are many methods for designing FIR [1-14] and
IIR [15-25] filters”
If you cite papers in groups, put at most 2-3
papers in a group

80. 80
Final citation rules
Golden rule: you cite a paper because it contains
information that is important for your article
You don’t cite a paper because
it’s famous, but you haven’t read it
it’s recent, and you need recent citations otherwise
your article may look outdated
it’s recent and its authors might be your reviewers
it’s fancy to cite that old German or Russian paper
it’s cited in other papers you have used

81. 81
Acknowledgments
Short section or paragraph in which the authors
mention a source of financing for their research
thank to other researchers that have helped making
the article better by suggesting bibliography, proof
reading, even giving raw ideas
thank to students or other personnel for running
experiments or for other non-creative jobs
thank to the reviewers, if they indeed contributed with
good suggestions—only in a revised version

82. 82
Appendices
Appendices come at the end of the article
They may contain
Long or technical proofs that can be skipped at a first
reading
Short reviews of known results, usually from another
field or topic, that are used in the article

83. 83
4. Style
The purpose of a scientific article is to convey
information directly and explicitly
Writing should be clear and unambiguous
Hence, articles should be “style-less”
However, a personal touch, not impeding on
clarity, is welcome
We discuss here only a few issues regarding
basic problems of writing style

84. 84
Style golden rules (Hengl & Gould 2002)
TAKE A READER'S VIEW: write for your audience not for
yourself
TELL A STORY: keep a clear focus in the paper and present
only results that relate to it
BE YOURSELF: write like you speak and then revise and
polish
MAKE IT SIMPLE: use simple(st) examples to explain
complex methodology
MAKE IT CONCRETE: use concrete words and strong verbs,
avoid noun clusters (more than three words), abstract and
ambiguous words

85. MAKE IT SHORT: avoid redundancy, repetition and over-
explanation of familiar techniques and terminology
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY: make a clear distinction between
your work and that of others
MAKE STRONG STATEMENTS: "We concluded... “, not "It
may be concluded... "
BE SELF-CRITICAL: consider uncertainty of conclusions and
their implications and acknowledge the work of others

86. 86
Personal vs. impersonal
Who is telling the story ?
“we” (first person)
“the authors” (third person or impersonal)
There are journals and conferences
recommending to avoid the use of “we”, as
showing a subjective position
“Science is impersonal” !
Science is about truth, not opinions

87. 87
Example
Which one do you prefer ?
we prove Johnson’s conjecture
Johnson’s conjecture is proved
the algorithm was implemented in Matlab
we implemented the algorithm in Matlab
it results from the experiments that…
we conclude from the experiments that…

88. 88
Why “we” ?
Common sense is for “we”
“we” shows clearly that the action was performed by
the authors
it is a claim of responsibility, so it is stronger
in a mathematical proof there is hardly place for “we”,
but in experimental sciences there are choices to be
made
“we” is warmer—more appeal to the reader

89. 89
When is “we” ok ?
Use “we” whenever referring to an action
performed by the authors
we have implemented the test…
we have obtained the following results
we have proved the theorem using…
When “we” is not proper ?
“from (4) and (6), we have a=b” (the equality holds and
that’s all, we don’t “have” anything)

90. 90
Participative “we”
Sometimes “we” is meant to include the reader
“We” = authors + reader
It is debatable if this helps
the reader may feel more involved
it may be confused with “we, the authors”

91. 91
Single author: “I” or “we”
Following the logic of “show clearly who performs
the action”, “I” should win
However, “I” is seldom used
“I” is maybe too strong and too personal
My opinion: I have used “we”, partly because I
didn’t dare to use “I”

92. 92
Active vs. Passive Voice
Active: subject does action
Passive: action is done by subject
Passive: action is done
Examples
the passive voice should be avoided
avoid the passive voice
it is shown in Figure 3 that…
Figure 3 shows that…

93. 93
When passive voice is good
Use active voice:
sentences will become clearer and shorter
it is easier to understand
usually, it does not decrease objectivity
Passive voice may be good
when the agent is not important and may be omitted
to emphasize the object of the action
However, most passive constructions have a
good active equivalent

94. 94
Tenses
Follow your common sense in choosing tenses
Present is the time of writing (and of reading !)
You have to use present for whatever you think is
perennial
Present perfect is used to describe your actions
that have led to the results
Past is for actions before the time of your
research (so, mostly other peoples’ actions)

95. 95
Time scale
Past Near past Present Future
Time of
other
people’s
research
Time of
your
research
Time of
your
writing and
of others
reading
?
tt

96. 96
Tenses—present
Present is the basic tense:
“Our main goal in this paper is…”
“The algorithm provides a solution…”
“Let R denote the covariance matrix”
“The OS algorithm derives from (27) and consists of
the following steps”
“The second example investigates the parameter
estimation performance”

97. 97
Tenses—present perfect
For your actions when conducting the research
“We have also considered MA signals with zeros well
inside the unit circle”
For other actions, when appropriate
“Assume that N data samples have been collected”
In the conclusions
“Two novel methods for the estimation of the
parameters of a moving average signal have been
introduced”

98. 98
Tenses—past
For referring to other research
“A similar idea was used in [14]”
“This idea, which was utilized in [18] and [21] for FIR
filter design…”
However, use present perfect if you refer to
collective efforts (still going on, possibly)
“To “factorize the unfactorizable,” researchers have
tried to correct the estimated MA covariance
sequence”

99. 99
Tenses—future
Easy rule: use future only about “future work”
Occasionally, you may use future with reference
to actions that appear later in your article
m is an integer whose choice will be discussed shortly
such an assumption means no restriction for the
second-order statistics that will be considered
throughout this paper
Otherwise, avoid future
Hence, we will obtain estimates of the MA parameters
by minimizing the following criterion: …equation…

100. 100
Words
Avoid long sentences
Use the right word
Don’t use fancy words
Be consistent: name each notion in a single way
If you give a “method”, name it “method” in the whole
paper, not “procedure” or “algorithm”
If a is first referred to as “coefficient”, don’t name it
later “constant”, “element” or “value”

101. 101
Hyphenate to avoid confusions
Many qualifiers before a noun may be confusing
A gradient descent bounded region method
Hyphenate to make it clearer
A gradient-descent bounded-region method
Alternatively, change topic
A bounded region method using gradient descent
Or change topic and hyphenate
A bounded-region method using gradient descent

102. 102
British vs. American English
Many small differences (see wikipedia: American
and British English differences)
optimization vs. optimisation
color vs. colour
Ph.D. vs. PhD
Try to be consistent
However, it’s much more important to use proper
English—many grammar or spelling mistakes will
make your paper look bad, no matter the
contents

103. 103
Comma
A comma can change completely the sense
Such errors are spotted easier when rereading a
whole paragraph or section
Which is correct ?
“The authors wish to acknowledge their co-workers,
Superman and Batman.”
“The authors wish to acknowledge their co-workers,
Superman, and Batman.”

104. Formulas
Punctuation in formulas: like formulas would be
words. Example: ”taking into account that
it results that...”
Some journals avoid punctuation in formulas,
which is a pity
104
1
( ) ( ) ( ),
N
i
i
y t h y t i e t
=
= − +∑

105. Symbols as words
In the beginning of a proposition, don’t treat
symbols as words of their own
Write ”The velocity v was measured” instead of
”v was measured”
Write ”Equation (3) shows”, not ”(3) shows”
In the middle of a sentence, it can be accepted
However, it is good to write sometimes ”the
velocity v” just to remind what the symbol denotes
105

106. 106
Judgment words
Avoid judgments not supported by doubtless
evidence
Think twice before writing “obviously”, “clearly”, “it
is well known”, “easily”
You must keep an objective position

107. 107
Acronyms
Acronyms are helpful, but don’t abuse
Define the acronym at its first occurrence
Redefine if used much later (or don’t use at all)
Try to make acronyms easier to remember by
changing words order, adding or omitting letters
WISE—weighted integral of the squared error
RoC—region of convergence

108. 108
Other writing issues
See excerpts from Kristin Cobb’s course at
http://www.stanford.edu/~kcobb/writing
(Cobb_Sciwri_style_notes.ppt)

109. 109
Plagiarism
Plagiarism is not only punishable, but also stupid
You’ll be caught, especially in a good journal, and
punished with publication interdiction for a certain
period, plus bad publicity
A few rules for paraphrasing (from Cobb !)
Use your own words
Work from memory
Draw your own conclusions
Do not simply re-arrange the original author’s words
Do not mimic the original author’s sentence structure

110. 110
Other sins
Self plagiarism: to copy paragraphs from your
previous papers
easy to detect, reviewers tend to search your old
papers; your paper will be probably rejected
Fabrication: to invent data supporting your theory
hard to detect, but once detected, you’re normally out
of the research community: red card
Omission: not to report data against your theory
easier to detect, but you may claim not making that
class of experiments: yellow card

111. 111
Is the paper ready ?
A paper can be always improved, but at some
point you have to submit it
Even if the paper is not perfect, try to eliminate
ALL typographical, mathematical and
grammatical errors
Take a break (2-3 days at least), then read the
version you want to submit as coldly as you can
If you made many corrections, then take an other
break and repeat

112. 112
A good quote
M.A.Morrison, “Tips on Scientific Writing”:
Professionals do not submit error-ridden documents. You can
almost guarantee that your paper will antagonize readers,
reviewers, and editors by leaving technical errors in it.
Eliminating technical errors from a paper requires time, effort,
patience, and persistence. It is hard work that you must do. Run
each draft through a spell checker. Check your figures. Check
your tables. Check your references. Get a friend or two to proof it
for you. Do whatever is necessary. But never submit a sloppy,
error-ridden paper. You've invested precious time and energy in
your work; your work deserves the best presentation you can
give it.

113. 113
Last details before submission
Prepare pdf file in required format
Prepare a few keywords, often from a list given
by the journal. Choose carefully, they determine
who will manage the review process
Fill copyright transfer form, if needed
Write a cover letter, if required
Usually only: “Dear Editors, please consider our article
‘Title’ for publication in journal X”. Signed: Y, author
Maybe also: a sentence or two regarding your original
contribution or a claim on the benefits

114. 114
After submitting the paper…
Once the paper is submitted, you should be
prepared to wait 2-4 months, even more, for the
results of the review process
You can work on the same topic or another, the
only forbidden act is to submit the same paper or
a slightly different version to another journal

115. 115
Double submission
Do not send similar manuscripts to different
journals, hoping that one is accepted
they may go to the same reviewer !
if one is accepted, you’ll withdraw the other ?
Can you send a shorter version to a conference ?
yes, but better before submitting the article
cite (or mention) the conference submission in the
article
take care that the article contains significant new
information

116. 116
Upgrading rules example
From the rules of IEEE Signal Processing Society
“It is acceptable for conference papers to be used as
the basis for a more fully developed journal
submission. Still, authors are required to cite related
prior work; the papers cannot be identical; and the
journal publication must include novel aspects”

117. 5. Review process
You have sent the paper to a journal
What happens there ?
A member of the editorial board (AE—associate editor)
chooses reviewers; this takes a week or so
The reviewers evaluate the paper and send their
reports to the AE (6-8 weeks normally, but often more)
The AE makes a decision and sends it to you, together
with reviewers’ reports (one more week)
You will usually know who is the AE, but the reviewers
are anonymous

118. 118
Editorial board
The typical editorial board
Editor-in-chief (usually one)
Associate editors (many: 20-50, even more)
Administrative staff
Your paper goes to an AE, chosen by the EIC or
by a publication manager
Choice is dictated by keywords, title, abstract,
author affiliation
Sometimes you may send paper directly to an AE

119. 119
AE activities
The AE reads quickly your paper, then
either starts the review process
or proposes immediate rejection, if the paper does not
meet the technical standard of the journal (it’s visibly
bad) or the topic is not appropriate
The AE chooses 2-3 reviewers, even more (I had
5 reviewers at a paper and know of a max of 6)
Based on reviewers’ reports, the AE makes a
decision

120. 120
Reviewer report
Each reviewer writes a report containing
a general assessment of your paper
objections to the method, the planning of the
experiments, the organization of the paper
improvement suggestions
The reports may be extremely diverse, see the
two examples
Also, the reviewer grades your paper on
originality, technical merit, writing, English

121. Grading example (IEEE TSP)
Suitability of topic
1. Is the topic appropriate for publication in these
transactions?: Yes / Perhaps / No
2. Is the topic important to colleagues working in the
field?: Yes / Moderately so / No

122. Grading (2)
Contents
1. Is the paper technically sound?: Yes / No
2. Is the coverage of the topic sufficiently comprehensive and
balanced?: Yes / Important information is missing or
superficially treated / Treatment somewhat unbalanced, but
not seriously so / Certain parts significantly overstressed
3. How would you describe technical depth of paper?:
Superficial / Suitable for the non-specialist / Suitable for the
generally knowledgeable individual working in the field /
Suitable only for an expert
4. How would you rate the technical novelty of the paper?:
Novel / Somewhat novel / Not novel

123. Grading (3)
Presentation
1. How would you rate the overall organization of the paper?:
Satisfactory / Could be improved / Poor
2. Are the title and abstract satisfactory?: Yes / No
3. Is the length of the paper appropriate?: Yes / No (If not,
recommend how the length of the paper should be amended)
4. Are symbols, terms, and concepts adequately defined?:
Yes / Not always / No
5. How do you rate the English usage? : Satisfactory / Needs
improvement / Poor
6. Rate the Bibliography: Satisfactory / Unsatisfactory

124. Grading (4)
Overall rating
1. How would you rate the technical contents of the
paper?:
2. How would you rate the novelty of the paper?:
3. How would you rate the "literary" presentation of
the paper?:
4. How would you rate the appropriateness of this
paper for publication in this IEEE Transactions?:
All these are graded on a scale from 1 to 10, with
Excellent 8-10, Good 5-8, Fair 3-5 and Poor 1-3.

125. 125
AE decision
Typical decisions (IEEE style)
A (accept as it is)
AQ (accept with minor changes)
RQ (revise and resubmit)
R (reject)
AE decision is usually an “average” of reviewers’
recommendations
What do you do in each case ?

126. 126
Accept
A after the first round of review means that
either you’re a genius
or it’s a bad journal (since reviewers are careless)
You may have to correct few details or typos, but
the paper is practically published
From now on you’ll have only to
send all files corresponding to the final version
transfer copyright
correct the proofs when they will be ready (after some
months)

127. 127
AQ
AQ means that your paper is essentially good,
but may be improved, especially in form rather
than in contents
Usually, AQ means some of the following
few paragraphs should be slightly reformulated
some equations, proofs, etc., need minor corrections
new experiments have to be made, but basically with
the methods you have already used
new bibliography should be added, but without much
impact on your method

128. 128
RQ
RQ means that your paper is basically correct,
but your proof (theoretical and/or experimental) is
doubtful or can be significantly improved
RQ may mean that
the structure of your paper has to be changed
some proofs have to be reformulated
new experiments, involving new methods, are needed
new bibliography is required, which may put your
methods in a new angle

129. 129
Reject
Several types of reject
paper is flawed (don’t dream of resubmission)
paper is not acceptable now, but may be reconsidered
if authors work hard (you’ll have to resubmit it)
If you’ll resubmit, the paper will probably go to the
same AE, who will probably get the same
reviewers
So, try to answer ALL reviewers’ suggestions
The resubmission is treated as a new paper

130. 130
Reject DON’Ts
Even if the reviews seem blatantly unfair, don’t
complain immediately to the AE. Cool off first !
Don’t hope that the AE will trust you more than
the reviewers. You must have a hard case to
change AE’s mind
Don’t challenge the reviews in matters of opinion,
but only if you can prove them wrong with facts
Don’t complain to the EIC—he will support the AE

131. 131
Reject DOs
Take the good part of it: you have 2-3 expert
opinions on your paper
Remember that reviewers would be happy to
read a good paper, so, if they didn’t like your
paper, there must be some reason
Try to take maximum advantage from reviewers’
comments: improve the paper !

132. 132
6. Revising a paper
See how much time you are allowed for revising
Start by understanding what the reviewers want
Print the paper as it was seen by the reviewers
Print reviewers’ comments
Read the comments one by one, marking the affected
paragraphs in the paper
Tag the comments: very important/not so important,
difficult/easy
Don’t get angry if the comment seems stupid: try to get
the reader’s viewpoint—maybe your text is not so clear

133. 133
Preparing a revision—the hard work
After getting reviewers’ points, do first the difficult
tasks
Read new bibliography and see how it relates to your
contribution
Complete/change proofs
Run new experiments, compare with other methods
Think how all these will affect the structure of your
paper
Don’t touch the paper in this stage

134. 134
Preparing a revision—the revised paper
You are now ready to write the revised paper
Write the new text with a different color: the reviewers
will spot it easily
Each time you have made the modifications that answer
a comment, mark it as solved
Try to make the modifications in a logical order, e.g. from
the beginning of a section to its end
Don’t be afraid to make corrections/modifications not
required by the reviewers, but keep them rather small

135. 135
Take a break—2-3 days

136. 136
Preparing a revision—the reply
Write a letter to the AE describing the changes
Structure: many paragraphs of the form
Copy of reviewer comment (or clear reference to it)
Description of modification, arguments, etc.
Be specific: give page, eq. numbers, describe
modifications as clearly as you can
Try to modify the paper as an answer to that
comment. Reviewers appreciate even small steps
taken to implement their suggestions

137. 137
Strategies for satisfying the reviewers
Best strategy: answer all comments by making
modifications in the paper
If you cannot answer to a comment (because it’s
difficult or it ruins your theory), you may gamble
try to refute the comment, without modifying the paper
answer thoroughly the other comments, trying to get
the approval of two reviewers
hope that, with 2 AQs and 1 R, the AE decides
publication (it’s not necessarily so)

138. 138
Reply DOs and DON’Ts
Thank the AE and the reviewers
Don’t use lengthy arguments
Don’t try to look smarter than the reviewer
Be polite, be polite, be polite
Don’t be overly polite, it might look strange
Remember that the best reply is a correct one

139. 139
Preparing the revision—the end
Check that you have answered all comments and
read again the paper
Submit the new version, taking care to see where
to upload the reply
A new review round starts
The outcome will be again an AE decision
Take care: some journals don’t accept RQ twice.
They reject the paper at the second RQ

140. 140
Withdrawing a paper
At any point in the review process you can
withdraw a paper by writing to the AE
Reason ?
You have discovered a major flaw
You cannot do what the reviewers request
In both cases, think again !
In the second case, think twice more

141. 141
You have published a paper ! What next ?
Be happy !
Let people know that you have published
put the article in your publication list on your web page
put also a preliminary version there (beware of
copyright issues !) or a link to the journal website
cite it in future papers, if appropriate (a reviewer feels
safer if the author is not a “nobody”)
Don’t forget the writing experience, but don’t rely
completely on it for the next paper

142. 142
Improve your style
When reading articles, keep an eye for the style
and writing technique
Imagine how you would tell the story
Grade writing in other papers
When you say “this is nicely/badly written”, try to
realize what are the reasons of your grade
Write on a regular basis, not necessarily for
immediate publication

143. 143
However… never forget:
You can write a good scientific article
only if
you have something new to say

144. 144
Online bibliography
Search these (among others)
K.Cobb, Scientific Writing,
http://www.stanford.edu/~kcobb/writing
E.R.Firestone, S.B.Hooker, ”Careful Scientific Writing: A
Guide for the Nitpicker, the Novice, and the Nervous”, 2001
T.Hengl, M.Gould, ”Rules of Thumb for Writing Scientific
Articles”, 2002
M.A.Morrison, “Tips on Scientific Writing”, 2004
M.E.Tischler, “Scientific Writing Booklet”