Payload Of Your Paper

A classic error for research grant proposals as well they’ll also describe Mount Everest they say here is this enormous problem give us some money and we’ll tackle it and die in the foothills all right so don’t do this okay well so two things that examples and not being over ambitious here now the second thing I put here was one describe the problem second say what your contributions are so I wanted to come back to your questions about contributions here so I think it is really important to list out pretty explicitly what your paper delivers right intersect you what you want to do is to say. Read more about proposals and contributions in research paper onĀ Edusson.

If you read this paper here is the the payload the benefit that you will get you are the reasons you might want to read this paper and then you’re our goal is it’s like sort of menu in a restaurant your goal is to get your run your readers to sort of salivate at you and think which I could eat that right so here’s an example so this is an example from another paper I vote so I had a bit of an introduction to the the setting and why it was an interesting and important problem and then I said in I didn’t say in this paper we have following contribution so that’s actually a quite a good phrase to say we make the following contributions here I just said we put the choice on a firmer basis and then I had a list of bullets look right one you know and I think bullets are helpful in contributions because they forced you to articulate what are my contributions as a list and they make the reader think oh he’s making three contributions here now all contributing perhaps to some glands you know some grand idea but nevertheless they’re the sort of underpinnings of it and the other thing about this contribution stuff is to try to be refutable.

What’s refutable but I mean it is possible that you could fail to deliver on this contribution if you say we will study the properties of system X you’re not going to fail surely somewhere else in the paper there will be some information about the properties of system X right was if you say we prove that the system is sound of type checking is decidable those are at least for an expert understandable and refutable you know maybe you didn’t prove that it’s sound maybe you didn’t prove that it was decidable do you see what I mean and so let’s see you know we’ve used it in practice this is a very thing here it’s it’s at least more concrete I mean it clearly you did build the Wiswall system and implemented a text editor and you compared it with you know these are these are more these are I think think celery rather than overcooked spaghetti by overcooked spaghetti sort of floppy and and and soggy right celery has some crunch to it you want your contributions to have crunch.