Contributions And Refutable Claims

You want to make your contributions refutable that is it must be possible to fail to deliver on them if your contributions say you know we describe the Wiswall system well of course you’ll describe the Wiswall system no reviewer can say he didn’t meet his contributions here but you’ve described it you know and if you say we’re gonna study this well of course you’ve studied it but it’s not very interesting merely to describe something or to study something you want to make refutable claims or claims that have some actual content. Find out more about refutable claims on Edusson.

So think celery not soggy overcooked pasta country crunchy refutable claims and I’ve just given a couple of examples here now last thing about the introduction how many of you read this paragraph when you read papers you do you read it oh yes but do you read it do you think what a great paragraph I wish I’d written that paragraph I’m reading every word with care and attention and love no you skip it don’t you because you’re going to read the paper right what the Dickens is this this this stuff on page one is simply a waste of that precious bandwidth you’ve got with your readers right it seems like the right thing to do to give an outline of the paper but I promise you nobody reads it and it’s occupying a column inch on your most precious page instead just do what I mentioned earlier and give these forward references right if in your stuff here you’ve Ford referenced all the section you have done everything you need it you have simply given a narrative that incidentally forward references the paper which makes this stuff entirely redundant so just don’t do it very strong advice here related work many papers go like this.

Don’t they have introduction related work and why not everything we do builds on stuff that people have done before so it seems like the right scholarly well justified thing to do to first of all go through the related work and then are a couple of pages later we’re now ready to see the new stuff that feels sort of kosher that feels what proper researchers should do but what actually happens in practice the related work forms a kind of barrier or sand bar or concrete wall between your reader and your idea you’re gonna drag your reader kicking and screaming through two pages of stuff that they don’t really understand before they can get to your idea and why don’t they really understand it well expert readers will write the people who are really in your micro part of the snowflake will know what you’re talking about but you would hope to bring with you many readers who perhaps not in your little tiny corner of the world but affirm a broader part of computer science so if you assume that they already know quite a lot of stuff we’re not going to make much progress.