Bài giảng Technical writing and presentation - Chương 9, Phần 2: Reading and reviewing

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Contents

TRƯỜNG ĐẠI HỌC BÁCH KHOA HÀ NỘI

HANOI UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY

1. Reading Literature

2. Finding Research Papers

3. Critical Reading

Technical Writing and Presentation

Reading and Reviewing

4. Developing a Literature Review

5. Evaluation of Papers

SOICT - 2020

2

1

2

Motivation

° Human knowledge is an infinite treasure

° Do not reinvent the wheel

The more that you read, the more things you

will know. The more that you learn, the more

places you’ll go

° What should we do?

° “Stand on the shoulders of giants”, Google scholar

Dr. Seuss

° Discover knowledge by building on previous discoveries

I Can Read With My Eyes Shut!

=> Reading and reviewing papers is an important activity

of the scientific process

3

4

source: Google

3

4

1

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

LITERATURE

° Tranditional definition: a collection of written

books, Wikipedia

° Other definition: “literary means not only what is

written but what is voiced, what is expressed,

what is invented, in whatever form”, Greil Marcus

& Werner Sollors

READING LITERATURE

5

6

source: Google

5

6

Reading Literature - Importance

Reading Literature - Situation

° Search of literature can lead

to hunderds of potentially

relevant papers

° Understand key concepts, terminologies,

theories, discoveries, and debates

° Identify new lines of questioning or

° Papers are not textbooks,

and should not understand

every line

investigation

° Discover your work is indeed novel or

innovative

° The number of papers that a

researcher working on a

particular project has to know

well is usually small

° Become familiar with key researchers in

source: DBLP

the field

7

8

7

8

2

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Reading Literature - Strategy

° Becoming an effective reader

is important

° Give a paper: decides to give

it more or less time that it

deserves

° Skim through it to identify the

extent to which it is relevant

FINDING RESEARCH PAPERS

° Only read it thoroughly if there

is likely to be value in doing so

source: DBLP

° Make effort to understand the

details

9

10

9

10

Finding Research Paper

Finding Research Paper - Path

° Use obvious search terms to explore the web:

° Each research work

publications, projects, solutions, etc.

builds on prior work

° Use special search tools for academic papers such as

google scholars

° The number of existing

° Seach the publisher-specific digital library such as

Springer, ACM, IEEE

publications is very large

° Vist websites of key research groups and researchers

° A consolation is that

recent work already

explored the older

working in the area

° Follow up the references in promising research

papers

° Browse the recent issues of journals and conferences

source: DBLP

in the area

literature => carefully

search for current work

° Consider using the citation indexes

° Discuss your work with as many people as possible

11

12

11

12

3

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Finding Research Paper - Path

° The process of search and discovery of

useful papers is a form of learning

° Finding all relevant work is hard; finding all

significant work is a critical part of doing

research

° Searching and reading are separate

CRITICAL READING

activities, do not try both at one

° If your idea is not so original after exploring

the literature, be honest – review your work

to see what aspect may be novel

13

14

13

14

Example

Critical Reading

° Would you click on the

° Active attempt to identify the contributions

hyperlink? Why?

and shortcomings rather than simply reading

from one paper to the other

° Good researchers should have ability to

analyze the work and claims of others

° A paper is refereed is an indicator that it is of

° Our life’s experiences

make us suspicious of

emails or advertisements

like this

° We might ask

° Are these real people

earning extra money so

easily?

value, but it is not a guarantee, because:

° A paper is a snapshot of research work at a

moment in time – what the researchers knew

when they submitted

° Is their method legal and

ethical?

° Is there really no risk?

° What will they do with my

personal details once I fill in?

° Assumptions may be implausible

° Dataset used may be so tiny, that the results are

meaningless

15

16

15

16

4

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Critical Reading

° Read papers by asking critical questions, such as

° Is there a contribution? Is it significant?

° Is the contribution of interest?

° Don’t accept something as true just

because it was published

° Don’t evaluate researchers being

° Are the results correct?

° Is the appropriate literature discussed?

dismissive of their past work

° We should respect published papers, and

learn from them about strengths and

weaknesses

° Does the methodology actually answer the initial

question?

° Are the proposals and results critically analyzed?

° Are all the technical details correct? Are they

° Inexperienced researchers see other work

either perfect or poor, with nothing in-

between. Usually, neither of these

extremes is correct

sensible?

° Could the results be verified?

° Are there any serious ambiguities or inconsistencies?

17

18

17

18

Example 1

° Is the methodology valid here?

° Excerpt

° Critical readers would question whether the sample

size was big enough to fulfil the aim of this study.

° The aim of the study was to describe how

patients perceive involvement in decisions

concerning their own treatment and nursing

care.

° They would also question whether the sample was

representative enough of the wider population, as the

criterion for inclusion in the population sample

perhaps created an unrepresentative group.

Sample

A convenience sample of 12 patients was

selected from three mixed-sex medical

wards. The only criterion for inclusion in the

study was a willingness to participate.

° The personality type that is willing to participate in a

study of this kind may suggest subjects that are

already highly involved in patient participation, thus

skewing the survey results.

19

20

19

20

5

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Example 2

° Excerpt

° Has the author overgeneralized the

° Each interview was tape recorded and took

between 60 and 90 minutes to complete. After

each interview, the tape was listened to and

transcribed. During this period, hunches or

working hypotheses were identified which were

explored in subsequent interviews. The major

theme of 'toeing the line' was identified that

provides insight into how patients view

results here?

° The author has used the findings from a very

small sample size, that may not represent a

sufficient range of patients, to support a major

line of argument about how patients view

collaboration.

° The authors are inferring that the results

gained from surveying these patients can be

generalized to all patients.

'collaboration'. The remainder of this paper will

focus on an exploration of this theme and its

significant implications for nursing.

21

22

21

22

Example 3

° Excerpt

° Who says leadership is back in fashion

° A third illusion is that leaders are not necessary in

good teams. Leadership is back in fashion. But people

in teams often argue that good teamwork makes

leadership redundant. Explicit or strong leadership

behaviour is seen as contrary to the notional equality

of teams.

° Is this assumed knowledge within the

discipline of Management?

° This point is stated as fact

° What theory is it based on?

° Do you agree with it?

This illusion and the lack of leadership it produces is

one of the worst things that can happen to a team. It

ensures an obsession with internal power relations and

a team without a champion.A leader is the team's link

with the wider organisation and the vital conduit for

resources, support and credibility. Teams need help to

understand how their leadership requirements change

and how to make the most of the leadership resources

distributed among members..

23

24

23

24

6

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Literature Review

° A structured analysis of a body of

literature, and may cover work from

several area of research

° These papers should be grouped by topic,

and discussed in a way that allows reader

to understand their contributions,

limitations, and questions that they leave

open

DEVELOPING A LITERATURE REVIEW

25

26

25

26

Literature Review - Questions

Literature Review - Progress

9

° When you read a paper that you think will

need to be discussed, add it in

•

How has the author collected the

data?

•

Who wrote the text and what are

the author’s qualifications?

° Rough stage: focus on organization and

content rather than on presentation

° group papers by topic and contribution

•

What are the findings?

•

When was it written?

What relevant sources does the

author use?

Who is it for?

° briefly summarize each paper’s contributions and

evidence used to support the claims

° add notes to each paper: features that are of

interest, shortcomings, how the work might better

° no need for drafts to be polished, no one but you

will early versions

° Early drafts should be as inclusive as possible

What is the main purpose?

Why was the study carried out?

•

What limits did the author place

on the study?

What is the author’s main point, or

thesis?

What aspects are relevant to

your research question/area?

What is your evaluation of the

text?

28

27

28

7

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Literature Review - Progress

° Refined stage:

° Decide whether to include each of the paper

you read.

• Obvious factors: how close some other work to

yours, how influential it has been

• Subtle factors: you find a survey paper or a recent

paper with a literature review of older papers; so

many older papers do not need to be discussed

EVALUATION

° When you remove a paper, put the

discussion in another file (or comment it out)

rather than deleting it

° Steps: rewriting, editing, polishing

29

30

29

30

Authors, Program Chairs, Reviewers

Contribution

° Contribution is the main criterion for judging a

° Submission and reviewing process

paper

° When authors complete a paper, it is

submitted to program chairs of a conference

(or editors of a journals)

° Typically, a paper is a contribution if it has two

main properties: originality and validity

° Originality: the degree to which the ideas are

significant, new, and interesting.

• Most papers are to some degree extensions of previously

published work

° The chairs send the paper to reviewers who

evaluate the paper and return assessments

• Impact of the contribution: how much change would follow

from the paper

° The chairs use these assessments to decide

whether the paper should be accepted or

rejected (or further revisions in case of

journals)

° Validity: the degree to which the ideas to be sound

• Should contain proof or analysis, experiment, simulation to

allow verification by other scientists

• Comparison to existing work is an important part of validity

31

32

31

32

8

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Evaluation

° Critical questions:

Evaluation

° Quality of a paper can be reflected in its

bibliography

° 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?

° How many references are there?

° Are there recently published references?

° Are there references to the major journals or

conferences in the area?

° Reviewers should make an effort to search for

errors that don’t affect the quality of the work

but should be corrected before going into print

° Spelling

Is the presentation at an adequate standard?

° Does the content justify the length?

° Syntax

° Errors in the bibliography...

33

34

33

34

Content of Reviews

Example 1

° Is the methodology valid here?

° Two purposes:

° Critical readers would question whether the sample

size was big enough to fulfil the aim of this study.

° Mechanism used by program chairs, editors

to decide whether papers should be accepted

° They would also question whether the sample was

representative enough of the wider population, as the

criterion for inclusion in the population sample

perhaps created an unrepresentative group.

° Means to share expertise between scientists

via comments for the authors

° Review content is an analysis of the

paper, explaining why it is or is not

suitable for publication

° The personality type that is willing to participate in a

study of this kind may suggest subjects that are

already highly involved in patient participation, thus

skewing the survey results.

35

36

35

36

9

Nhập môn CNTT&TT

2016

Example 2

Example 3

° Has the author overgeneralized the

° Who says leadership is back in fashion

results here?

° Is this assumed knowledge within the

° The author has used the findings from a very

small sample size, that may not represent a

sufficient range of patients, to support a major

line of argument about how patients view

collaboration.

discipline of Management?

° This point is stated as fact

° What theory is it based on?

° Do you agree with it?

° The authors are inferring that the results

gained from surveying these patients can be

generalized to all patients.

37

38

37

38

39

10

Bài giảng Technical writing and presentation - Chương 9, Phần 2: Reading and reviewing - Vũ Văn Thiệu