Seminar: Softwareproduktlinien
Marko Rosenmüller
Norbert Siegmund
Christian Kästner
Gunter Saake
2008 / 2009
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 2
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Outline
• Aufbau eines Papers
• Bewertung
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 3
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Why to write a paper
• Communicate new findings
• publication = ultimate result of scientific research
• research is never finished until it's published
• To let the community know about your work
• Recognition
• Contacts, fruitful collaborations
• Get feedback from peers
• external, independent, frank (anonymous)
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 4
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
What to write in a paper
• Write the paper for readers
• As communication between you and readers
• Consider their backgrounds
• With evaluation criteria in mind Original contribution Significant problem Significant solution Sound results High-quality presentation
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 5
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Anatomy of a paper
• Title
• Abstract
• Introduction
• (Background)
• (Problem Statement)
• Body
• Evaluation
• Discussion
• Related Work
• Conclusion + Future Work
• References
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 6
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Abstract
• Very brief summary of the paper
• Why is this work important, what was the motivation?
• Main contents, main results
• Typically one of the last things to write
• => Is this paper relevant for the reader?
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 7
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Introduction
• What is the general problem? Why is it important?
• What is the specific problem? Why should the reader care?
• How is it different from prior work?
• What was the motivation for this work?
• What are the objectives/contributions? How is it new? What is the general approach/outline?
• Keep it short (approx. 1 column)
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 8
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Background (if necessary)
• What is the necessary background to understand this work?
• In scientific papers usually very short.
• Know your audience!
• Only background that is really necessary!
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 9
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Problem statement (if necessary)
• What is the specific problem? Why is it important?
• Example if necessary
• Sometimes necessary to tell the reader that there is a problem
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 10
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
The contribution
• Main part of the paper
• Describes the own approach, the innovation
• Readable, verifiable! Examples where necessary!
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 11
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Evaluation / Proof
• Evaluation critical
• What is the evaluation criteria?
• Case studies? Empirical studies?
• Does your innovation scale up? Does it solve real problems?
• Report experience
• Readable, verifiable! Can be assessed and replayed
• Separate data from interpretation
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 12
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Discussion (if appropriate)
• Interpret results
• Advantages and Disadvantages
• (Comparison to related approaches)
• Threats to validity
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 13
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Related Work
• What are others doing?
• How is this work different?
• Common reviewer comments:
• “The paper omits important related work”
• “The authors describe the related work but don't compare their work”
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 14
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Conclusion and Future Work
• Summary
• Results, what has been achieved
• What's missing? New research questions?
• Bigger context, long-term goals?
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 15
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
References
• Give credits to previous and contextual work
• Reference quotes, claims, previous results
• References must include
• Name of authors
• Title
• Journal, Conference, Publisher
• Volume, Edition, Pages
• Year
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 16
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Für dieses Seminar
• Ausarbeitung über den aktuellen Stand und zukünftige Herausforderungen
• Überblick über das Themengebiet
• Verständlich für alle Teilnehmer des Seminars
• Gegebenenfalls Vergleich verschiedener Lösungen
• Pro/Contra Argumentation
• Offene Probleme / zukünftige Herausforderungen
• Aufbau: Einleitung, (Grundlagen), (Problembeschreibung), Hauptteil, offene Probleme, Zusammenfassung
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 17
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Finding literature
• Library: Journals
• scholar.google.com
• ACM Digital Library
• CiteSeer
• dblp.uni-trier.de
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 18
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Style
• Cohesion (Roter Faden)
• Line of thoughts
• Self-contained
• Say what you're saying before saying it
• Avoid mere description
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 19
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Typical Problems
• missing motivation (why is it important?)
• unclear goal, unclear contribution
• missing reasoning (“thats the way I did it”)
• dead-end discussions, unused background
• missing cohesion
• bigger picture missing (just details)
• missing conclusions or results
• jargon, background missing
• related work missing
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 20
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Typical comment patterns
• “the objectives are unclear”
• “too little beef”
• “the authors seem to ignore ...”
• “... so what?”
• “the paper fails to deliver what is promises”
• “unsubstantiated claims”
• “opinion paper...”
• “premature...”
• “the paper provides little evidence that the results do apply in real settings”, “scaleability is questionable”, etc
• “evaluation is weak”
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 21
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Evaluation Criteria Paper
• Does the paper match the chosen topic?
• Do title and abstract reflect the content of the paper?
• Is the paper well structured?
• Is the motivation clear?
• Do sections contain the content promised in section titles?
• Is there a consistent recurring theme or does the author jump from idea to idea?
• Are all background information necessary for understanding the paper provided?
• Are there any unnecessary information/sections?
• Are arguments well supported by references? Are references complete and suited?
• Are examples/figures/tables used adequately to support understanding the paper?
• Is the reasoning of the paper correct?
• Is the paper well written (language, style)?
Seminar Softwareproduktlinien 22
Rosenmüller / Siegmund / Kästner / Saake
Evaluation Criteria Presentation
• Allgemeiner Eindruck (Körperhaltung, Blickkontakt, Sprechgeschwindigkeit, -lautstärke, Auftreten, Vorbereitung)
• Verständlichkeit • Motivation
• Zielgruppengerecht
• Abgeschlossen
• Schlüssigkeit
• Detail vs. “Big Picture” (Tiefe vs. Breite)
• Roter Faden
• Folien (Klarheit, Formatierung, Text-, Code-, Formelmenge, Visualisierung)
• Zeit
• Fragestunde