Lecture 2

Seminar on Advanced Topics in Information Technology (MIT 7213)

The structure of a Scientific Research Paper

Prerequisites of scientific paper

• Well-Designed.

• Original.

• Revolves around Data

• Specific for a chosen Journal.

Major Sections
• Five (or six) major sections
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction (without a heading!)
• Method (and procedures)
• Results
• Discussion and conclusions
• References
Title

• Easy to understand and catalogue.

• Concise, specific and convey the main idea.

• Must Contain the Primary Key Words.

Abstract
• Abstract
• Summarizes the main information from all the sections of the manuscript
• Purpose
• Subject
• Procedure
• Data analysis
• Results
• Should be written last.
• Take the main sentences from each section and put them in order which
summarizes the paper.
• Evaluation: Is information about these major aspects of the research
included?
Introduction and background
• Introduction and background
• Identify the problem area
• Review of related Literature
• Purpose of the study

• Identify the problem area

• Why was the study conducted?
• What was the motivation for doing the study?
• Discuss the relevant primary research literature
• Evaluation: Is the author’s reason for conducting the study clear?
Introduction and background

• [i] What was being studied?

• [ii] What was the important question?
• [iii] What did we know about it before?
• [iv] How does this study advance knowledge?
• From General to Specific.
Review of related literature

• Introduction (continued)
• Review of related literature
• Grounds the research topic within a tradition of inquiry.
• Summarize relevant research results.
• Evaluation: Are research studies related to the problem area presented? Does the study
logically extend the findings (or conclusions) from earlier studies?
• Provides a basis for Theoretical or Conceptual framework.
• Purpose
• States specific expectations (hypotheses) to be tested.
• Identifies the specific questions to be answered.
• Evaluation: Are the research variables easily identified from the hypotheses, questions, or
statement of purpose?
Method
• Method
• Subjects
• Target population
• Sampling procedures
• Instruments
• Procedures
• Treatments
• Data gathering procedures
• Operational definitions.
• What was done, where was it done? and how was it done.
• Evaluation: Is sufficient detail provided to allow exact replication?
Method
• Study design, settings.
• Control, exposed or treatment groups and variables measured.
• Study protocol, inclusion and exclusion criteria.
• Sample size and grouping, data collection and replication.
• Pre-experiment, experimental handling, measurements and
procedures detail.
• Detailed and Reasoned statistical summary.
• Statistical software used, data computed, analyzed.
The Method Section in Computing Papers
• Identify the algorithms /data structures/ techniques you investigated.

• Summarize the algorithms generally for your audience

• Highlight features relevant to your project
• Refer readers to your references for further details
• Use code snippets, descriptions, or diagrams to describe an
algorithm or an optimization you employed.
The Method Section in Computing Papers
• Explain how you implemented the algorithms in your research.
• How specifically did you implement the algorithms?
• How did you handle instrumentation code? Why?
• Did you perform any optimizations? Why or why not?
• How did you choose to test and benchmark your code?
• What inputs (data) did you select to test your implementations?
Why?
Results
• Key findings in logical progression.
• Report both positive and negative results.
• Organize the results around tables and figures.
• Provide nature of differences, relationship and magnitude of the
findings with enough interpretation.
Results
• Results
• Describes the types of procedures used to organize and analyze the data.
• For quantitative studies:
• Are sufficient descriptive statistics provided?
• Are the inferential statistical procedures appropriate?
• Were significance levels indicated?
• Were effect sizes provided?
• Were there controls for threats to internal and external validity?
Results
• Results (continued)
• For qualitative studies:
• Are the processes for organizing data, identifying patterns and synthesizing key ideas as
hypothesis and research questions clearly described?
• Are there multiple procedures for corroborating research evidence and researchers’
judgements?
Discussion
• It provides effective solutions to the issues based on the logical
synthesis of the findings.

• Formulates more profound understanding of the research problem.

• Describe the meaning of the results to the reader and interpret the
finding.
Discussion
• Start with the major findings of the study.
• Provides answers to testable hypotheses relevant to existing
knowledge.
• Discuss the results with the findings of others and refer to the
findings in order to support your interpretations.
• From the general to the specific and link the findings to the literature.
Discussion
• 6–8 paragraphs.
• The first paragraph stating major findings, why the findings are
essential, and provide answers to testable hypotheses relevant to
existing knowledge.
• The middle paragraphs consist of 4–6 paragraphs relating the
findings to those of similar studies, supporting your findings, which
strengthens the importance of your study results.
• The last 1–2 paragraphs point out where further gaps in knowledge
could usefully be filled
Discussion in Computing Papers
• What, specifically, did you learn from comparing these algorithms or
data structures?
• What do your results say about the problem or question you were
investigating?
• Was your hypothesis confirmed or disproved? • Are the results what
you expected
Discussion in Computing Papers
• If you obtained anomalies or other unexpected results, can you
explain them?
If not, how could you set about in the future to identify what caused
them?
• How do your results compare to past findings? Are they consistent?
Different? Why?
• How would you respond to objections or questions that other
researchers might have about your methods, results, or
interpretations?
Conclusion
• Conclusion or Discussion
• Briefly restates the purpose and results.
• Provides explanations of:
• Whether the results answered the research quesitons,
• How the results relate to the literature reviewed in the introduction, and
• The implications the results have for practitioners or other researchers.
• References
• All cited literature is referenced.
How to Review and Evaluate
a Scientific Article
• What is the specific question (s) being addressed?

• What general research methods are used?

• List the major findings of the paper and identify the figures and tables
(data) which support those findings.
The Basics of a Critique
• Are you confident about the data presented? If not, why not? What
might be wrong?
• What major conclusions do the authors make in their discussion? Are
their conclusions supported by the data? How are these data
important to the field (That is, what do these data tell us which is
new?)?
• Are there other possible interpretations (explanations) for the data?
What are they?
Reviewing the Purpose
• What were the objectives in performing the study?
• What were the research questions being asked?
Study Design
• What type of study was performed?
• How was the study population sampled?
• Are there potential sources of selection bias?
Measurement and Observation
• Are clear definitions of terms used?
• What outcome criteria were used?
• What measurements were taken?
• How?
• What methods were used to assess validity or reliability of
measurements?
Results
• How are the data presented?
• Is the data relevant to the study question?
• Are there data that were not presented?
Conclusions
• What were the main conclusions?
• Is the study significant?
• Is the study relevant to other populations?
• What questions remain unresolved?