Transcript No Slide Title

Writing Research Papers for Publication
Y H Song
Brunel University, UK
Outline of Presentation
•
•
•
•
•
•
General Guidelines
Authors’ Guide
Paper Review
Research Papers
Paper Structures
Revising manuscripts
General Guidelines
•
•
•
•
Select an appropriate journal to report your work
Read the author’s guide of your chosen journal
Read a sample paper from the journal
Writing order:
•
•
•
•
•
Write the main body of the paper
Write the conclusions
Write the introduction
Write the abstract
Give your paper a title
• Give to someone to check for you
• Do not use “ I propose …” or “We have done”
• Passive and current tense
Authors’ Guide (the IEE)
• Scientific merit: is the work scientifically rigorous, accurate
and correct?
• Clarity: are ideas expressed clearly and concisely? Are the
concepts understandable? Is the discussion written in a way that is
easy to read and understand?
• Referencing: has reference been made to the most recent and
most appropriate work? Is the recent work set in the context of the
previous work? Is there a balance of references from archival
materials (journals and conferences)?
• Balance: is the overall and structure of the paper is good?
Should the authors concentrate more on a specific area of the
paper, or are there sections which are unnecessary and which
could be reduced or eliminated?
Authors’ Guide (the IEE)
• Appropriateness: is the material appropriate to the scope of the
journal? English: is the English clear and well-written? Poorly
written English may obscure the scientific merit of your paper.
• Originality: is the work relevant and novel? Does the work
contain significant additional material to that already published?
• Motivation: does the problem considered have a sound
motivation? All papers should clearly demonstrate the scientific
interest of the results. Papers should not rely solely on previous
literature or novelty to motivate publication.
• Repetition: we ask our referees to alert us to repeated or
duplicated material that may already have been published. Followup papers must contain significant additional new material to that
already reported.
Authors’ Guide (the IEE)
• Length: is the content of the work of sufficient scientific interest
to justify its length? Typically 3000-4000 words and not more than
10-12 illustrations.
• Title: is it adequate and appropriate for the content of the article?
• Abstract: does it contain essential information of the article? Is it
complete? Is it suitable for inclusion by itself in an abstracting
service?
• Diagrams, figures, tables and captions: are they clear and
essential? Are all figures and tables labelled and referred to in the
text?
• Screenshots: can these be clearly read? If the lettering is too
small, ensure that each picture is enlarged so that everything can
be read.
Authors’ Guide (the IEE)
• Graphs and tables: are these clear and necessary? Where
several graphs are on one axes, are they clearly distinguishable?
Explanations should be in the caption, or in the immediately
surrounding text.
• Mathematics: is the mathematics necessary? Does it use
commonly understood symbols? Are equations numbered if
referred to in the text?
• Related work: a separate section on related work I typically
included. It can be as part of the introduction and motivation at
the beginning.
• Conclusion: does the paper contain a carefully written
conclusion, summarising what has been learned and why it is
interesting and useful?
Paper Review (1): the IEEE
•
Recommendation
•
•
•
Accept without changes
Revise and resubmit
Reject – do not resubmit
•
Technical Content
•
•
•
High
Average
Low
•
Interest for this Transactions
•
•
•
High
Average
Low
Paper Review (1): the IEEE
•
Innovation Level
•
•
•
Original ideas
Average
Old material
•
Presentation Quality
•
•
•
Clear, effective
Average
Poor
•
References to Prior Work
•
•
•
Excellent
Adequate
Insufficient
Paper Review (1): the IEEE
•
Legibility of Figures and Illustrations
•
•
Acceptable
Not acceptable
•
Has This paper Been Published before
•
•
Yes
No
•
Quality of Text
•
•
•
Acceptable as written
Needs editing
Needs a complete rewrite
•
Comments to the author supporting the
recommendation (General comments and specific changes)
Paper Review (2): the IEE
•
Rating for the paper
•
•
•
•
•
•
Outstanding work of great significance
Good and useful advance in the field
Marginal
Not significant
Trivial
Erroneous
•
Does the paper describe original work
•
•
Yes
No
•
Is the paper more suitable for publication in a
different journal
•
•
Yes
No
Paper Review (2): the IEE
•
Should the paper be shortened
•
•
Yes
No
•
Is the paper technically sound?
•
•
Yes
No
•
Are the references adequate
•
•
Yes
No
Paper Review (2): the IEE
•
Evaluate the technical content of the paper in
respect of both theory and application
•
Theory
•
Poor, little content; Fair, minor contribution; Moderate; Good, major contribution;
Outstanding
•
Application
•
Poor, little content; Fair, minor contribution; Moderate; Good, major contribution;
Outstanding
•
Is the paper organised to show clearly what has
been done?
•
•
Yes
No
•
Is the use of English clear and unambiguous
•
•
Yes
No
Paper Review (2): the IEE
•
Has the author demonstrated the value of the work
•
•
Yes
No
•
Recommendation
•
•
•
•
Accept
Accept subject to revision
Reject but resubmit after major revision
Reject
•
Comments to author to give guidance on revision
or reasons for rejection
Research Paper
A good research paper has
• a clear statement of the problem the paper is
addressing
• the proposed solutions
• and the results achieved
• clear description of what has been done before on the
problem, and what is new
Research Paper
A good research paper
• Describing the results in sufficient details to establish
their validity
• Identifying the novel aspects of the results, i.e., what
new knowledge is reported and what makes it nonobvious
• Identifying the significance of the results: what
improvements and impact do they suggest
Research Structure (1): Title
• Avoid all but the most readily understood abbreviations
• Use adjectives that describe the distinctive features of
your work
• Normally not exceeds 20 words
• Author name and affiliation: format (C.C. Wang)
Research Structure (1): Title
• Dynamic Available Transfer Capability (ATC)
Evaluation with Uncertainties
Research Structure (2): Abstract
• Must not contain references as it may be used without
the main paper
• Avoid general motivation in the abstract
• Highlight not just the problem, but also the principal
results. Many people read abstracts and then decide
whether to bother with the rest of the paper
• Since the abstract will be used by search engines, be
sure that terms that identify your work are found there.
• Avoid equations and maths
• Normally about 150-200 words
Research Structure (2): Abstract
The paper proposes models and algorithms for
Available Transfer Capability (ATC) evaluation by
considering dynamic constraints, and discrete
uncertainties. Equilibrium equations instead of load
flow equations are used to describe the pre-fault and
post-fault steady state of power system. Dot Product is
employed to assess the rotor angle stability after a
disturbance. The formulated optimization problem is
solved using the Control Vector Parameterization
(CVP) approach. Discrete uncertainties, such as device
outages, are dealt with recourse. The IEEE reliability
test system is used to illustrate the proposed method.
Research Structure (2): Keywords
• Keywords or Indexing terms
These keywords should identify the field of your article
and its major topics, and they should be specific and
standard words.
Many journals use three levels of keywords: general
terms (power system stability); subject descriptors
(voltage collapse) and specific terms (singular value
decomposition)
Research Structure (3): Introduction
• Introduce the problem:
The statement of the problem should include a clear
brief of what it is and why the problem is important (or
interesting).
Research Structure (3): Introduction
Since North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC)
published the document ‘Available Transfer Capability Definitions
and Determination’ in 1996, much attention has been attracted to
this subject. ATC is defined as a measure of the transfer capability
remaining in the physical transmission network for further
commercial activity over and above already committed use [1]. In
fact, the concepts, such as transfer capability and transfer limits,
have always existed. But in the environment of electricity market,
these concepts have been developed to reflect the commercial
values. As is announced in the NERC documents, ATC must
accurately reflect the physical realities of the transmission
network, while not being so complicated that it unduly constraints
commerce [1]. Thus the accuracy of ATC value is of great
importance. In order to achieve this goal, more and more factors
have been considered, and various evaluation schemes have been
proposed.
Research Structure (3): Introduction
• Review related work:
• Cite anything relevant from last 2-3 years or so
volumes
• Number references in the order of their appearances
• Use about 15-20 references
• Comments both pro and cons of others work
• Identify points for improvements
Research Structure (3): Introduction
• The ATC evaluation first considered only thermal limit
[1]. Methods based on sensitivity can be solved without
iteration [2,3]. Linear programming methods are also
used, with the distribution factors introduced [4,5].
Then voltage limits, especially voltage collapse [6], are
taken into account, and the Continuous Power Flow is a
typical method for this kind of problem. Recently, the
uncertainty factors are modeled as well. Techniques
such as Monte Carlo method, and stochastic
programming are used to solve the ATC evaluation
problem [7-11].
Research Structure (3): Introduction
But stability limits, one of the three limits restricting
transfer capability, is seldom discussed. Since it is
difficult to consider dynamic constraints, securities
constrained optimal power flow (SCOPF) is used as an
alternative solution [12]. The existence of stable
equilibrium in post disturbance system is only a
necessary condition of system stability [13]. It is also
important to ensure that the system can safely make
the transition from the pre- to post-disturbance
operating point. In this respect, dynamic ATC methods
based on second-kick ……
Research Structure (3): Introduction
• Outline the proposed method and solutions
• Outline the rest of the paper
Research Structure (3): Introduction
Since there are no MOD identification and energy
evaluation, the dot-product method is simpler to
realize. And it also has an ability to detect multi-swing
stability using the real response of the system. Based on
the ‘Dot Product’ concept [18] and the stochastic model
[11], this paper proposes a dynamic optimization
approach to solve dynamic ATC evaluation with
discrete uncertainties. Sections III and IV present
deterministic model and algorithm for dynamic ATC
evaluation. Section V develops the stochastic model and
associated algorithm. The results on the IEEE
Reliability Test System are given in section VI. Finally,
some conclusions are drawn in section VII.
Research Structure (4): Main Body
• Problem formulation
• Proposed approach
• Results and analysis
Be sure to explain your procedures, to present your results, and to
interpret your results. Summarise your findings in meaningful
ways, visualizing important data whenever possible. Discus the
significance and limitations of your findings.
Research Structure (4): Conclusions
• Conclusions: summary and future work
• Acknowledgements
• References (all the authors’ names, full details of the
publications (Vol, No, and page numbers). Do not use
et al.
Revising Manuscripts
• In most cases, referees or the editor will ask you to
revise your papers and also explain what you have done
to further improve your paper
• Mandatory changes: you have to do it.
• Optional or suggested: you would better try your best
to do it or explain why you have not done it.
• Write a cover letter to point out what you have done